Is a High Value Man a Man of Value (HVM)?
Hello hello! welcome to my little world/ecosystem where you can get an appreciation of what goes on in my mind. I had to write about this topic of value in the manosphere because I'm a man or at least a male. I think this write-up might end up raising more questions than me stamping my definition on the subject matter. However, I will put them out in such a way that I end up conveying my message. I will like to say, I don't think a high-value man is necessarily a man of value. That's because person A and person B need a reference frame to use in order to call something valuable or define an act as valuable. Nonetheless, we can all agree on some objective value such as you could provide some high value to society by way of business, entertainment, or invention but treat your subordinates without respect or fail to be a worthy family man. So I will personally believe for a man to be a HVM and a man of value at the same time, he must tick all the boxes. Anyways, let's get into it, shall we?
I was looking up definitions of a HVM but unfortunately, there appear to be no respectable or I should say reputable and highly referenced dictionaries that define such a man. The best I could find is by the urban dictionary (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=High%20value%20male) and it defines it as "A high-value man, or HVM for short, is a man that is seen as highly valuable either to society or in a relationship (romantic/familial/friendship) to the opposite sex (women)".
In recent times, one can argue that with the rise of affirmative action and the suppose blames placed on the patriarchy, men who demonstrate the traits that have enabled them to survive since the times of our ancestors will likely be labeled toxic man or at least the very traits will be called toxic. Society from as far back in time as we can remember has been a male-driven one. I can't say that anymore in this age where the consumer market and the demand for goods and services are driven by women as a result of their population far outweighing that of men. I just want to establish a ground on which I can position who/what a HVM is. So this is in no way, shape, or form trying to undermine any demographic of people.
Back to the definition of a HVM. The typical person refers to such a man only when talking about a relationship. Also, it is wrapped up and delivered in this age as a man who can possess many female sexual partners. Do I find anything wrong with this? I can't really tell even though it does fit into part of the definition we saw above. Or should we consider a man who ticks all the boxes in its entirety as stated by that definition to consider a man to be a HVM? We don't need to look further than the animal kingdom as defined by taxonomy to find common ground as dictated by science. I'm a big proponent of the school that seeks to remind us of the fact that we humans are and remain animals regardless of the fact that we are at the uppermost echelons of the animal kingdom and possess a brain far more advanced than that of the animals.
Why am I bringing up the animal kingdom? I bring this up because the very behavioral fundamentals that define animals encompass us all. We somehow have managed to be a lot more civilized in the way we behave. To demonstrate this and why I'm linking a high-value man to the principal males among other slightly developed animals is because they (males) tend to fit the definition of a HVM as given above. Think of a valuable male lion, dog, cock, pig, goat, etc and you see that they are usually distinguishable from their peers because they have either fought and defeated other males around to secure territory and secure the females around them. Don't get it twisted, I'm not equating men to male animals but rather establishing an evolutionary trait found generally in the animal kingdom.
If we agree to disagree, you can confirm from the last paragraph and reference to the definition of a HVM given above to see that indeed, such a man provides a valuable service or good to his society and as a result, is admired, respected and desired both as a companion and as a sexual partner by the opposite sex. I'm not referring to same-sex here because I think generally in the animal kingdom, biologically and evolutionary, sexual attraction is between the opposite sex and same-sex attraction is but an abnormality and a deviation from the normal. That being said, we can all see that like any endeavor with a rewarding ending, it requires work and challenges to accomplish. To all men, I'm saying you must be providing high value to be considered a highly valuable man. There's no sugarcoating it due to the fact that for you to be recognized as a HVM, you must go through challenges and overcome them to be worthy of rewards. Those challenges can be of diverse natures but the rewards are clear; seen as highly valuable either to society or in a relationship (romantic/familial/friendship) to the opposite sex (women).
A man who has women flocking to him or who can get most women he wants is generally seen among many youths as valuable. Is this capability alone to say the man is a HVM? personally, I think he can wilt such capability because he has achieved. Now, I don't know what your moral compass is but if a man can successfully engage in such and not cause trouble to society, I think he is definitely of high value. The world has evolved so much that it is another job on itself having to deal with multiple partner relationships. So I think looking at our HVM definition and history, it is difficult for a man to be of high value and not be promiscuous even in the lower chain of the animal kingdom with successful male animals. This is a trait that is biological. However, men wilt something called self-control, and like a habit, this something that can be developed into a habit. It is difficult to go down in history and not see cases of high-value men who have been ruined as a result of their uncontrolled promiscuous nature.
To conclude, I want to say I have engaged in debates about HVM, and most times most women find it offensive and for this reason, masculine traits have been demonized. If anything, we need more masculine men now. The physical part and demands of work may have been replaced by technology but masculinity just has evolved into another form. Perhaps it has evolved into more combativeness, competitiveness, assertiveness, argumentativeness and, men being more disagreeable. To me, these are aspects of men that subduing can lead to an explosive volcano. High-value men have managed these traits to be able to be high-value and the best are the ones who can control these and keep the society stable.
On that note, I put down my pen and while wishing you well, I hope to have you reading next time.
Comments
Post a Comment