On the sexual marketplace and quantum stupidity: what is a 5, and why she is actually a 7, …as well as a 6 all at the same time.

Thomas Crown seems like a nice enough bloke but he talks nonsense a times and his concerted attempts to introduce reams of scientific jargon and financial modelling prose into daygame discourse are ill-conceived. I will show you why, below.

Whats is a 5?

Let us assume that a female 5 is a girl of average height and average looks and average personality. OK so what if this 5 has a child and smokes. Does this make her a 4? Or do both of these negatives make her a 3? Does she lose 2 points on the SMV scale for being a single mother and being a smoker? What happens if you aren’t bothered that she has a kid and smokes. Is she still a 5? What happens if you don’t mind that she smokes but you do mind that she has a kid. Is she a 4?

OK so what if the girl is above average height but has all the above attributes and disadvantages as listed above. Does this make her a 5.5 (some men like a taller girl) or does it make her a 4.5 (some men like shorter girls). What if she’s a blonde girl with average height, average looks, average build, she smokes and she has a child but she lives in Tower Hamlets or Islamabad? Is she a 7 here?

OK, so what happens if she has a slight skin problem but is below average height but has all the above attributes and disadvantages. Does this make her a 6 or a 4 (some men like a taller girl, but they aren’t bothered about skin issues) or does it make her a 4 (some men don’t like shorter girls or girls with skin problems). And what happens if this same girl lives in Islamabad or Tallinn?

Now let’s assume her fashion is akin to the grunge/skateboarder look. Should he dock this girl for the stylistic fail? Is she now a 3? And what happens now if this 21 year old “3” (or 4, 5, 6 or 7) was ‘gamed’ by a 27 year old man as oppose say a 47 year old man. Does the relative age difference between the woman and the man increase the SMV of the girl in relative terms based on her age spread? Is she now an 8, in the SMV ecology of the 47 year old man?

OK returning to 27 year old man let us assume he is in above average shape and good looking (a male 7 for the purposes of the illustration) and he gamed this baseline 5. He’s punching below his weight, right? What happens if he’s 47 and overweight, bald and poor? He’s punching above his weight, right? What happens if the good-looking 27 year old man smokes and has a kid – does he become a 5? What happens if the 47 year old man doesn’t smoke and doesn’t have a kid. Is he a 7? What if this 47 year old man has a great job, is confident and good-looking. He should be performing better, right – (a consequence of his ‘better SMV?’). But not so fast. What happens if he has a whiney accent, is uncultured and lacks empathy and the ability to connect to women. Does he fall into the category of a slightly weird and socially uncalibrated man who has missed the boat when it comes to re-packaging himself as an option for women to settle down with? Or does it make him the bad-boy playa-bastad like Tom Torero would have you aspire to be?

Who has the greater SMV to the hot 25 year old woman – the 35 year old man with a stable career, social proof, a home (not an Airbnb) or the ducker-and-diver in a black leather jacket? Which one gets more likes on some losers Twitter (The Red Quest, DaysofGame or Red Pill Dad – all fat old yanks) because it sells more likes.

Is a 9 a legitimately stunning girl with a great body, great face and smile? But what if she has a whiney accent, what if she is uncouth, smokes and has a child. What if these things bother you but they don’t bother the next man?

The list goes on and the permutations are endless.

But you get my point.

The sheer absurdity of attempting to draw pseudoscientific correlations between poorly-defined terms like ‘5s, 6s and 7s’ is laughable and even the most basic interrogation shows how weak this system is to criticism.

You’re simply better of saying there are girls you usually fuck, girls you sometimes get to fuck, and girls you never get to fuck.


Comments

7 responses to “On the sexual marketplace and quantum stupidity: what is a 5, and why she is actually a 7, …as well as a 6 all at the same time.”

  1. Lol. My system:
    1-4: invisible
    5: might fuck if outrageously drunk or high
    6: cute and fuckable but feel like you’re underperforming
    7: no harm no foul. Could date
    8: you feel pride in getting her. Head turner
    9: pirelli calendar quality
    10: literally nothing you could improve upon without upsetting delicate balance of perfection.

    Like

    1. Yeah, based on this schema I think most girls I’ve dated are 7s and 8s but I open 8s and 9s (in some cases but nearly always it goes nowhere).

      Like

    2. p.s. you ripped this schema from Crown’s book, didn’t you

      Like

    3. Johnny Berba's stammering client avatar
      Johnny Berba’s stammering client

      For something as far right as Game and the red pill there are an awful lot of equalists.

      Like

  2. broodings soiled y fronts avatar
    broodings soiled y fronts

    you’re just being facetious twat brooding. stick to ringing low value women and shitting in the woods please.

    Like

  3. broodings soiled y fronts avatar
    broodings soiled y fronts

    you’re just being a facetious twat brooding. stick to ringing low value women and shitting in the woods please. (I bet you wont authorise this comment because you’re not for democracy for a start.)

    Liked by 2 people

  4. […] Walk around any British or overseas university campus, around any major city and you see attractive young women dating positively unremarkable men (in other words, they aren’t 6 feet plus, jacked, sporting great physiques or baller lifestyle tells). Normality dates normality across the younger age cohort. Unremarkable-looking young men frequently are seen with rather attractive and in many cases beautiful young women. These guys in all probability don’t have any understanding of the Red Pill or daygame and the girl’s selection behaviour is a more complex recipe of physical attraction blended with future projection (i.e. is he suitable to date into a formal relationship to build a family with), is he culturally acceptable (i.e. in synch with national/religious/family historical values) is he socially acceptable (i.e. similar age) and does he have implicit behaviours (trustworthy, normal funny and reliable). I am almost sure that Thomas Crown wrote his post after crumbling a Black Pill into powder form and snorting a line of it. It is soaked in resignation and authoritarian recourse (just be good-looking and tall). Ultimately, it belies his extremely poorly understood prism of attraction for women – which is far more complex than looks alone (see here). In the case of Krauser and other guys who reached the very pinnacle of elite daygame, they understood that the emotional experience we create with a woman is often far more important than the simple presentation of our physical attributes. Lastly, don’t get me started on the passage “dating a point above their looks”. I have written about this previously here. […]

    Like

Leave a reply to BroodingSea Cancel reply