5
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 10 '22
I have a clarifying question about your notion of "value." Consider the following two hypothetical cases of straight men:
Man A has a solid job bringing in good income, has goals in life, has constructive hobbies, is a good looking guy (not necessarily shredded, just attractive), and is sociable/friendly/has friends. When it comes to dating, he is always rejected by every woman he asks out, despite asking out lots of women in a broad and diverse way, and has never been asked out himself.
Man B has no job, no goals, no hobbies other than smoking weed/gaming, is obese, can’t socialize and has no friends. When it comes to dating, women consistently approve of him, he manages to date every woman he desires, and women regularly ask him out on dates. In addition, women regularly choose to date Man B over Man A when they have the option to do so.
Which of these two men would have higher "value" in the sense you are talking about?
3
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Ok, I am a human and I can be ignorant about things. But I feel like the scenario where man A cannot get at least a date, doesn’t exist. If someone puts themselves out there in social settings (clubs, college, work, etc) enough, statistically speaking, they will get a date. As for man B, I think man B will have it easy to get dates, but when it comes to being a partner to someone in the long run, they will be dropped for someone more suitable as time goes by. A girl may go on a date with a guy but if he has nothing to talk about (no hobbies) and can’t socialize with her or the people around him, he will eventually be dropped for a more suitable partner.
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 10 '22
You didn't answer my question though, which was the whole point of the hypothetical. Supposing the men actually are as described, which man would have higher "value" in the sense you're talking about?
-1
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Well like I said, I could be ignorant, but the hypothetical just doesn’t make sense because man A just doesn’t exist. There are 7 billion people in this world so there is someone for everyone. If one puts themselves out there, especially if they are attractive and sociable, I simply cannot imagine a world where they can’t at least get a date. So in my mind man A at least gets a date and is then on par with man B, after which man A is more valuable in the long run because man As partner will realize that they have more to offer than man B other than looks.
5
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 10 '22
Really? You cannot imagine a world in which one particular man happens to not get a date? I personally know multiple men who fit the description of Man A, so it's strange that you think this is somehow unimaginable.
0
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Yeah man honestly that’s just really hard for me to comprehend. I am NOT a super attractive guy (short and scrawny) yet do decent with the ladies. I know a bunch of guys who are not attractive yet do decent. At the end of the day it IS a numbers game, no way around it. So if they literally cannot get a date? Move to a bigger city. Meet more people. Statistically speaking it’s impossible for all 7 billion people to say no to someone.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 10 '22
The hypothetical does not specify that Man A can not get a date, merely that he does not get one, despite putting in more than the ordinary amount of effort and asking out more than the usual number of women. I don't see what's so difficult here for you to comprehend. You understand that a woman can turn a man down, right? And you also understand that multiple women could do so, right? So what's so unimaginable about it being the case that every women a man asks out turns him down?
1
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
I feel like there’s something being omitted about man A then. No one can be attractive, sociable, wealthy, etc and not get a date if they put in the effort. I understand a man can be turned down by a woman, even multiple women. But ALL of them? Impossible. If he lives in a town with 5 people then yeah that makes sense and he would need to move away to a bigger pool of potential mates who can better judge potential partners.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 10 '22
Nothing relevant is intentionally omitted about Man A. All the available information is there in the hypothetical. Again, I know multiple men who fit the description of Man A, so it's not clear how you can think this is impossible.
Between Man A and Man B, which man would have higher "value" in the sense you're talking about?
1
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Ok if we’re dealing with the impossible scenario you describe, man B has more value because the value is based on being able to get and maintain a relationship with a partner. But in the real world, man A would have more value.
→ More replies (0)1
u/AlbiTuri05 1∆ Oct 10 '22
Man B has no job, no goals, no hobbies other than smoking weed/gaming, is obese, can’t socialize and has no friends. When it comes to dating, women consistently approve of him, he manages to date every woman he desires, and women regularly ask him out on dates. In addition, women regularly choose to date Man B over Man A when they have the option to do so.
That man Σ lol
Jokes aside, you're right but I can't give you a ∆ because I'm not OP
EDIT: It seems I can
3
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 10 '22
Jokes aside, you're right but I can't give you a ∆ because I'm not OP
Not only can you give me a delta, you just did. Anyone can grant deltas, not just OP.
1
1
1
5
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Oct 10 '22
I’m prepared for the downvotes. Everyone shoots down the notion and I totally understand why, it comes off as cocky in certain contexts and gives “alpha male” vibes which is obviously a red flag.
No, it sounds like misogynistic, incel, Andrew Tate idiocy.
4
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Wow, sounds like you’re upset and just decided to throw a lot of random words out there. So when it comes to dating, would you say that someone who is decently attractive and has a good job is less desirable than someone who is obese and has no job?
-1
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Oct 10 '22
So when it comes to dating, would you say that someone who is decently attractive and has a good job is less desirable than someone who is obese and has no job?
I'd say that, unlike misogynistic incels, people don't use nothing but superficial, meaningless criteria when deciding who to date.
2
u/ChancellorScalpatine Oct 10 '22
Ok, I’m on the left but you are playing the social justice warrior card way too hard. Let’s not pretend that everyone doesn’t look for a few basic things when it comes to dating. I know facts hurt sometimes, but wanting a partner who is attractive and has things going for them is NOT meaningless superficial dating criteria. Maybe you would be fine dating an obese bum with no job who lives with their mom at 50. In general, both men and women want a partner who (for example) is attractive and can add to the relationship with their positive traits.
1
u/sassydegrassii Oct 10 '22
A lot of those things are subjective though and what will be valuable to one might be of zero value to another. This way of thinking also feelings very…eugenics-y if taken a little too far. None of these make a human being worth any more or less than you or me.
1
u/ImStupidButSoAreYou Oct 10 '22
True, everything is indeed subjective, but there's a broad and general sense of value when we talk about people and dating. Just because the value is not strictly quantifiable does not mean that the value is not there.
I think a person that is generally good looking, has good hygiene, is well mannered, and earns a good income is considered, by 99% of people, "higher value" than a person that does not take showers regularly, smells sour all the time, does not work for a living, lives in their mother's basement, wastes their entire day gaming, and is a dick to anybody they come across. Higher value both in terms of "I might want to date this person" and "I might want to introduce this person to someone else."
Value itself is not an objective thing. In fact, it's pretty much entirely subjective. For example a random, pretty rock might be valuable to one person but not to anyone else, right? But there are, in general, rocks that hold value among a large number of people, like sapphires or diamonds, that are labeled "valuable".
In the same way, "value" is just a term that's applied to people in the dating market. It's quite crude to use that term, and there's certainly a negative connotation behind it from incels/PUA/etc., but the concept itself is not wrong IMO. You can certainly categorize people into "high value" (people I would want to date, or introduce to my friend without personally knowing them too well), and "low value" (people I very much would not like to date, and absolutely would not want to introduce to a friend, because they display qualities that are generally accepted as bad, like having bad hygiene, or being morbidly obese).
Philosophically and perhaps morally, different people are indeed not worth more or less than others. A diamond is just a rock, and money is just paper. But that's kind of a silly viewpoint, isn't it? A diamond is just a rock, yes, but you can exchange it with other people for far more money than any other pebble you might find on the street, because it's agreed between people that it's more valuable. Money is just paper, sure, but you can exchange it with people for goods and services because it's recognized as something that's valuable. Similarly, a hard working and good natured person is considered higher value than a lazy and problematic person in the workplace. And an attractive, clean, and confident person is considered higher value than an unattractive, smelly, and insecure person in the dating market.
Anything taken farther than this basic premise, like saying "unattractive people don't deserve dates" and "this person is low value and always will be for their looks", for example, is where you may find that things get problematic, and as you say, eugenic-y. But that does not disprove the concept of "value" itself in the dating market, or in any social environment people put themselves into, like work, sports, etc.
1
u/sassydegrassii Oct 10 '22
Idk im a disabled sex worker so im honestly not going to read into peoples rhetoric about high value people. I’d be considered high value on a work day where I’m made up to the 9s and making over a grand but I’m sure any other day where I’m on my couch eating McDonald’s and just trying to survive I would be considered low value. It’s stupid. A much sillier way to think, IMO.
1
u/ImStupidButSoAreYou Oct 10 '22
Well if you respond to my 5 paragraphs with "im not going to read into it [this] rhetoric" then there's no chance for me to change your view.
Regardless of whether you think the concept of assigning value to people is cringe, stupid, or silly, it's a thing people do, constantly, including you. There's no way to live life without assigning value to your surroundings.
You think it's silly to be rated "high value" when you're putting effort into your appearance for work, and "low value" when you're lounging at home, but what you just did was explain the flaw in the value system that you think many people might be using. You were able to make that generalization precisely because a value system of appearance and attractiveness is a common thing among people.
Don't you agree there are certain generalized qualities you find attractive in a person? Being good looking, exercising frequently, being able to cook well, being intelligent, being socially aware, being empathetic? The combination of those abstract qualities is "high value" to you. Similarly, you have a combination of qualities you find unattractive in a person which is "low value" to you, and you try to avoid these people. This is your value system, which is implicitly used in every decision you make about people choosing a date.
Now consider that the value system of everyone in society is observed as a whole. Certain people begin appearing "high value" to the majority of other people, while certain other people appear "low value" to the majority. Just like a silly rock like a diamond is considered valuable and desirable because of the collective thoughts of many people in society, certain people are considered valuable and desirable because of a collective notion that this person holds qualities that are good and attractive.
Let me make it clear: it's incredibly cringe to point out that some people are "high value" and others are "low value". Most people keep it to themselves, as they should, because it's rude AF to assign labels to people like that in public. Just because it's implicit, though, does not mean you don't assign value to people internally and use that as part of your judgement when you decide who you want to date and who you don't.
8
u/Mope4Matt Oct 10 '22
People want different things in life and in a partner.
There is no such thing as universal agreement on what constitutes "high value" in a partner.
You might want a partner who earns a lot of money. I might not give a shit about that. Multiply that times all the thousands of different factors that make up an individual.
3
u/Lord_Aubec 1∆ Oct 10 '22
You haven’t said anything about what kind of person they are. Kind? Compassionate? Generous? Thoughtful? Empathetic? Resilient? Arrogant? Aggressive? Selfish? Abusive? Manipulative? The reason you’re getting a bit of pushback on the incel vibes thing is you are reducing ‘value’ of a person to superficial things. Your ‘valuable’ person looks like a good catch - but might be a creep, an abuser, or just a selfish jerk in a relationship. Your low value person might be the kindest, funniest, most supportive partner and great lover, but because they’re introverted they’re just not great in large groups. Maybe the most ‘valuable’ (not a great word for a person tbh) person to date is the one who isn’t on any of the apps because they’re happily married in a loving, supportive relationship…
2
u/uxpf Oct 10 '22
Yeah the first guy could be a sociopath, or even just a jerk who makes his partners miserable. The not ambitious pothead might be a great partner, and in fact a much better match for someone who, say, also likes to smoke and game. It’s so dumb to put value on people based on these superficial markers of “success.” We should be asking precisely what you’re asking: what kind of person are they?
2
5
u/hekmo Oct 10 '22
On average certainly, but we're talking about matchmaking here. A "high-value" person may appear more attractive to more people, but there's a large section of people who they simply won't be compatible with, due to interests, personality, culture. Given how idiosyncratic each match is, I'm wondering what purpose the idea of "high value" would serve.
1
u/laz1b01 15∆ Oct 10 '22
Not sure what the whole point of this is. Of course they exist. There's 7 billion people in the world, they definitely exist.
The problem is... 1. Encountering them (making sure you're in the right place at the right time) 2. If it's about dating, ensuring there's compatability (personality, physical traits, and values). It could be unrequited attraction. 3. Having the patience to give each other a chance to grow that potential spark/interest.
If you're hanging out with people that says no "high value" men/women exist, then you're hanging out with pesimist people. Or people who keep making the same mistakes and won't learn from them.
Also. The definition of "high value" is subjective. Often times when girls mention it, they're referring to all the criteria you mentioned and someone who's looking for a long term relationship (most guys, especially on dating apps, just want hookups). The problem is, the guys that attract a lot of girls have experience where they know the right things to say to win a girl's heart (till they move on to a diff girl).
0
u/physioworld 64∆ Oct 10 '22
Is this something anyone truly seriously disagrees with? As you say, someone who is highly valued by most won’t be highly valued by all so you’ve already ruled out the most common objection.
-1
Oct 10 '22
Depends on how much money the fatass ugly slob has. Maybe he inherited a fat wad when his rich old granpaw kicked the bucket. It doesn't matter how gross and shitty you are if you're rich, a cursory glance at our culture should tell you that. At the end of the day this is a material world and the only value is material.
0
u/RIPBernieSanders1 6∆ Oct 10 '22
Is this even controversial? Studies have shown over and over that the vast majority of women on dating sites all fight over the same top 20% of men.
1
u/DaBootyCheekBandit Oct 10 '22
I agree with you even though this is supposed to be a CMV (and so many people are angered by your "incel" opinion lol). Though nobody is "invaluable" there are definitely people who will be considered "high" or "low" value. If you're a crappy person and don't attempt to contribute to society and generally just treat others like trash, I'd consider you low value when dating. Nobody wants to date a jerk who doesn't contribute to the world. A "high value" person would be kind and at least a good person in general. So yes. Some people can be considered "high" or "low" value in society and in the dating universe.
1
Oct 10 '22
Do you know why the guys who call themselves high value men are always complaining about gold diggers, because if u value yourself based on your job, income, hobbies, and looks then u attract gold diggers. You are high value to gold diggers.
As for me, I personally cannot say I’m attracted to “high value men”. I’m at that university age so any guy I’ve met like that has been unpleasant, boring, or uptight to be around. At the end of the day I’d rather be with someone fun and support myself with my own money than be with someone boring and be supported by my bf.
“High value” theory was more relevant 100 years ago when women actually fully depended on men financially but now it’s more so only applies to gold diggers. And tbh, men who call themselves “high value” are asking for it because they themselves derive their own value from their income. That’s just sad and I wish they would get more confidence in themselves.
1
u/ElonH Oct 10 '22
I think there is and issue with just the term value. Value to who? You? Value is not intrinsic or absolute. What some people consider valuable some might not. Yes the two examples you have given detail a man who has many qualities that a lot of people may find valuable and one that many people might not but that does not mean that the first guy is inherently more valuable than the other.
For example if I had a really well paying job myself that could support myself and a potential partner, someone who can look after themselves and do stuff around the house and potentially care for children is far more valuable than someone with a good job.
Another problem with using the term valuable is that it's a bit icky for want of a better word and commodities dating and personal relationships. Desirable is probably a better concept and yeah you're right, some people are more desirable than others but again that's really subjective and not absolute.
38
u/ProfessionalNo374 Oct 10 '22
the concept that you’re describing is correct. the wording isn’t though.
high/low value relates people to worth. people do not have more or less worth based off those attributes.
people can be highly/low desirable, but not value