CMV: Average single women are usually not delusional about their "market value" (RMV), they have just decided that being single is better than what they can "afford" for a relationship.
UPDATE: discussion is pretty much over, my view was not changed but I also feel it was not really challenged by anyone. Perhaps I failed to make my point clear enough of perhaps readers misunderstood me on their own. I’ll update if any late passers change my view.
I'm attempting to present a good faith CMV here, meaning that I'm actually willing to have my view changed. I'm not sure what exactly would change it so go ahead and try anything! I understand that the blue pill in general dislikes "market value" analogies but I think I'm actually arguing a point blues on this sub have been making for a while, through a red pill lens, using redpill terms. Bear with me this time, blues!
One view frequently expressed by redpillers in their anger phase is that women are delusional about their actual value, holding out for guys well above their league, cluelessly believing they are in a league far above their own. I'm not actually convinced this is true. Rather, I'll make an analogy of renting vs owning that currently plays out in my home states of CA and is probably vaguely related to how dating plays out as well. Again, bear with me blues, as this is "objectifying," as you would put it, but I'm trying to make a good faith argument here, not just rage bait you.
Renting = SMV (sexual market value)
Owning = RMV (romantic market value)
Right now in CA, people can afford (barely, sort of) to rent in areas they know full well they would *never* be able to own in, most notoriously the SF Bay Area but also lots of other lesser known, desirable towns. This is analogous to women having casual sex with guys much hotter than them, who probably won't commit to an LTR/marriage. I don't think *most* women really expect an LTR from these men anymore than they expect to own a home in the neighborhoods they expensively rent in, its just that their alternative is LTRs with guys who are not necessarily terrible, but not as good as casual sex with hotties (owning a home in an either dangerous neighborhood or a lackluster 3 bed/2bath with a long commute to work). Further, renting homes is easier than owning, the property owners are responsible for maintenance, and there is no property tax or homeowners insurance. Owning a home is a lot more work than renting one, and you are much more stuck with it than with a rental. That's also true of an LTR vs casual sex. Most people/women would rather rent in a nice/cool area close to work than own in a dangerous/boring area far from work, especially with the costs and effort of maintenance.
This is whole post is based on another argument TRP makes, that average women's SMV is far higher than their RMV. I also think this is *somewhat* an issue of women having a hard time going back to "average" for an LTR after having "hot" for short term, but in actuality is more a deeper symptom of economics shifting the balance of work/effort vs life fulfillment/reward in such a way that lots of people will find what a *modern, western* family model not worth it.
TLDR: most average women know full well their SMV is higher than their RMV, they just feel being single offers a better (even if sub optimal) lifestyle to being in an LTR with their RMV match. The order of preference goes: LTR with hot guy > single possibly with casual sex with hot guy > LTR with average "RMV match" guy.
I don't think "the Wall" (more accurately called "the mild tilt") will actually affect millennials/gen z much in this regard, the women will either have one baby from one of their casual sex partners and "go it alone" or just straight up stay single and take care of aging parents, sisters/brothers/besties kids or seek other social outlets.