At what age do you ladies think a man hits his "SMV" prime?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SMV = Sexual Market Value.

Within circles like this that derived from the manosphere/red pill, it seems like there is a popular belief that men generally will hit their prime at around age 40.
I've even seen many men on this forum who share this belief. Personally, I would disagree with this and think it's just men trying to rationalize that they still have plenty of time to find a virtuous and attractive wife who hasn't been on the carousel. In fact, I think it's a belief that can be very harmful.

But given that a man is trying to find a woman like that, I am curious to what you women would respond to this? When do men generally hit their prime according to you?

 

Kitty Tantrum

Woodpecker
Woman
I think there are two issues at play here:

1. The age at which a man hits his prime (variable).

2. The availability of undamaged women (also variable).

The fact that a particular man can't find a suitable and undamaged woman to marry when he's 40 or so, does not necessarily mean that the man is not in his prime. We live in a broken, broken society; bad results don't always mean YOU did something wrong.

I think a man's "prime" is a matter of development stacked up against life expectancy.

A man might hit his "prime" at a relatively young age (25-35 or so) provided he gets a solid start and spends his younger years developing the appropriate qualities to actually make the most of those years.

A man might hit his "prime" at a relatively old age (40-45 or older) if his childhood or youth was protracted (we see a lot of this these days). His remaining years might be dwindling, but if he can "catch up" to where he "should be" developmentally, then those WILL BE his prime years - because he knows how to make use of them appropriately instead of frittering them away as he did previously.

I believe men should be taught to strive to reach their prime at a young age.

Not that it is hopeless for men who don't get there until they are older - but to suggest that men should deliberately put off actually getting around to living (marrying, starting a family, etc.) until some arbitrary age, based on the fact that our culture has bred generations of man-children who statistically are not fully developed until around then... that's just bad advice.
 

Lamkins

Woodpecker
Woman
When I was 21-22 looking for a husband I’d have dated a mid-forties or older man without a second thought as long as he was mature, secure in his career, with similar interests and morals as mine. That was far more important than age. My husband was 31 when we started dating.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood the question though.....
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
I think there are two issues at play here:

1. The age at which a man hits his prime (variable).

2. The availability of undamaged women (also variable).

The fact that a particular man can't find a suitable and undamaged woman to marry when he's 40 or so, does not necessarily mean that the man is not in his prime. We live in a broken, broken society; bad results don't always mean YOU did something wrong.

I think a man's "prime" is a matter of development stacked up against life expectancy.

A man might hit his "prime" at a relatively young age (25-35 or so) provided he gets a solid start and spends his younger years developing the appropriate qualities to actually make the most of those years.

A man might hit his "prime" at a relatively old age (40-45 or older) if his childhood or youth was protracted (we see a lot of this these days). His remaining years might be dwindling, but if he can "catch up" to where he "should be" developmentally, then those WILL BE his prime years - because he knows how to make use of them appropriately instead of frittering them away as he did previously.

I believe men should be taught to strive to reach their prime at a young age.

Not that it is hopeless for men who don't get there until they are older - but to suggest that men should deliberately put off actually getting around to living (marrying, starting a family, etc.) until some arbitrary age, based on the fact that our culture has bred generations of man-children who statistically are not fully developed until around then... that's just bad advice.
Very well rounded, insightful answer. Can you clarify what you mean (I presume you are female) by "developmentally"? As in, your reference to developing the qualities or making the most of those years; that is, where should one be developmentally to be at/near the peak SMV?

Do you consider age at all? Or just age ranges, since there is such a degree of age and physical trait mismatch amidst the numerous men around?
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
When I was 21-22 looking for a husband I’d have dated a mid-forties or older man without a second thought as long as he was mature, secure in his career, with similar interests and morals as mine. That was far more important than age. My husband was 31 when we started dating.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood the question though.....
Another good response. The OP can correct me, but I'm thinking a shortened or summarized/to the point version of his question is:

Weighing all factors of men, does age play that significant of a role in your consideration of him?

The community rightly understands that the "physical" is less important to women, and resources/leadership/wisdom the most, in general. I think it turns out that we have a hard time truly finding out what women really would choose over everything else, because they in fact are so malleable to the culture (perhaps this is the point) and in particular modern culture socially pressures against age gaps. Sharp people understand that this shaming/pressuring is done by both (jealous) men and women.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top