I think the question is not well framed. Consider an analogy with dowry. In certain countries (India), women (or her family) must pay the husband to get married. In other countries (Islamic), the husband pays money to the bride family. Marriage brings value to both participants, but depending on the culture either men or women must pay the cost of the deal.
Using that analogy we see that on certain sex markets, men must pay (in money or in time and effort) a certain amount to get pussy. Call that the cost of pussy. That amount depends on the market and varies with time. In a market where men are very horny/desperate and women very prudish, we expect the cost of sex to be very high (or in OP’s terms, the SMV of men to be very low). Conversely, in a market where women are ugly and easy like the West now, we would expect the cost of pussy to be very low or negative, but that is not the case. Cost of pussy seems to have increased. This is a paradox.
To solve this paradox we must see that the market is not a market for just resource (time/money) vs pussy. It is a market where commitment + resource are exchanged for pussy. Commitment from men has decreased to zero, so men must compensate with increased resource payment. If you ignore the commitment variable, you think that cost of pussy has increased, but it has not, because commitment has gone to zero.
Now what would happen if a man was willing to pay in commitment? It wouldn’t work because commitment is non enforceable! (Because of divorce and general promiscuity) So women value commitment rationally at zero. (Similar effect to Akerlof lemon model in microeconomy).
Hence my answer, market cost of pussy has increased (in apparence) because commitment from men is valued at zero due to promiscuity and destruction of marriage.
Note that cost of prostitution has *not* increased (they have gone down slightly according to the Economist magazine), which is consistent with my thesis. Because cost of prostitution has never included any commitment component.
Using that analogy we see that on certain sex markets, men must pay (in money or in time and effort) a certain amount to get pussy. Call that the cost of pussy. That amount depends on the market and varies with time. In a market where men are very horny/desperate and women very prudish, we expect the cost of sex to be very high (or in OP’s terms, the SMV of men to be very low). Conversely, in a market where women are ugly and easy like the West now, we would expect the cost of pussy to be very low or negative, but that is not the case. Cost of pussy seems to have increased. This is a paradox.
To solve this paradox we must see that the market is not a market for just resource (time/money) vs pussy. It is a market where commitment + resource are exchanged for pussy. Commitment from men has decreased to zero, so men must compensate with increased resource payment. If you ignore the commitment variable, you think that cost of pussy has increased, but it has not, because commitment has gone to zero.
Now what would happen if a man was willing to pay in commitment? It wouldn’t work because commitment is non enforceable! (Because of divorce and general promiscuity) So women value commitment rationally at zero. (Similar effect to Akerlof lemon model in microeconomy).
Hence my answer, market cost of pussy has increased (in apparence) because commitment from men is valued at zero due to promiscuity and destruction of marriage.
Note that cost of prostitution has *not* increased (they have gone down slightly according to the Economist magazine), which is consistent with my thesis. Because cost of prostitution has never included any commitment component.