HubertSkeletrix
Silver
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2025
- Posts
- 573
- Reputation
- 338
Before we get into it, let me know if yall would like femboys next.
Private study conducted by Dr. med. Hubert Tripledick (you can call me hubs tho) and Dr. Wazir Bittleton IIV.., all content and data has been collected privately and personally and cannot guarantee results over broader data sets. This study was conducted on purely female data sets.
The aim of this study was to find if there any underlying correlation between manipulative behaviour, sexual activity and intent, and sexual market value which is constituted by body proportions and fat, height, as well as facial attractiveness. The calculations for sexual market value involve a verified specialist rating for each female in the respective categories, an example is the data set of study subject Emi, who was given an official rating of 5/10 height wise, 6/10 facially and 6/10 in body proportions as well as a subtraction of 3 points due to her bodycount of 6 giving her a total SMV of 3.88
According to data collected a majority of patterns have been recognized. Higher SMV individuals are less likely to have a high bodycount. In fact there is a direct correlation in which the higher the SMV the lower the bodycount. We believe the reason for this to be a complex psychological phenomena known as paradox of choice. The paradox of choice is when high SMV individuals are exposed to more sexual attraction and thus become more indifferent to it as well as selective as to who they engage in sexual acts with. However we believe this to be not only an internal aspect but an external aspect too. Higher SMV individuals are seen as more intimidating and higher value thus they are approached less due to fear of rejection. The combination of these two aspects means an exponentially lower chance of a higher SMV individual engaging in sexual acts compared to their lower SMV counterparts.
As for manipulative behavior it is the opposite. Individuals with lower SMV have been reported as significantly more abusive or manipulative. There is again a direct correlation in which the lower the SMV the more abusive and manipulative. We believe this is due to another psychological phenomena known as Alfer Alders theory of overcompensation. Alfer Alders theory of overcompensation is when an individual who is insecure or lacking in a specific social or sexual aspect overcompensates by overdeveloping other behaviors. In this case
women who view themselves as less valuable in the sexual market will overcompensate by being more manipulative, abusive as well as sexually active. This can be seen as a defense mechanism rather than outright malevolence, due to their deep insecurity they will create coping mechanisms to deal with that insecurity, and these coping mechanisms can be increased sexual activity to “satisfy” the partner or abusive and manipulative behavior to regain “control” over their partner. Some individuals instead of overcompensating can even mask their insecurity. For example if one is insecure about their sexual desirability they will act overly bold or promiscuous to mask their deep fear.
In conclusion. Higher SMV individuals have been noted to be less various in how many partners they engage in sexual activities with due to the paradox of choice as well as less emotionally abusive and manipulative due to their lack of need for it. Lower SMV individuals have been noted to be more various in how many partners they engage in sexual activities with due to their more approachable image and their lack of high expectations, and are more abusive and manipulative due to their insecurity and the need to mask their inferiority complex.
SMV=Height+Face+Body-(Bodycount/2)/4
The study aims to examine whether:
| Name | Height | Body | Face | Freakyness | Bodycount | Manipulative | **SMV** |
| ---------- | ------ | ---- | ---- | ---------- | --------- | ------------ | --------- |
| **Thea** | 10 | 6 | 6.55 | 8.65 | 4 | 3 | **5.14** |
| **Gina** | 7 | 4 | 8 | 7.5 | 0 | 3.5 | **4.75** |
| **Alexa** | 2 | 8 | 7.5 | 4 | 0 | 3 | **4.38** |
| **Feli** | 1 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 8.5 | **4.38** |
| **Alyssa** | 3 | 6.9 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 0 | 4 | **4.00** |
| **Paula** | 6 | 5 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 0 | 7.75 | **3.88** |
| **Emi** | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7.5 | 6 | 7 | **3.88** |
| **Steffi** | 6 | 4.2 | 5 | 6.6 | 4 | 8 | **3.80** |
| **Maya** | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7.5 | 8 | 5.75 | **2.88** |
| **Tori** | 7 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 10 | 100 | 10 | **–1.80** |
This is the strongest and most consistent trend in the dataset.
Higher bodycount is consistently paired with higher manipulative behavior.
This suggests freakyness may be a compensatory behavior at low SMV.
Low SMV corresponds with unstable, extreme behavioral patterns.
Bodycount strongly correlates with manipulative behavior.
Lower SMV reliably predicts extreme freakyness and extreme manipulation.
High SMV predicts stable, consistent, low-drama behavior.
Dont forget to leave a like and subscribe!
Everything in a google docs format so its easier to read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tklOazJLoSgpa52bfxUE_-lRTLTb3kQddaGbLDeWzYM/edit?tab=t.0
Study Report: “Associations Between SMV, Sexual History, and Manipulative & Sexual Behavior Traits”
Private study conducted by Dr. med. Hubert Tripledick (you can call me hubs tho) and Dr. Wazir Bittleton IIV.., all content and data has been collected privately and personally and cannot guarantee results over broader data sets. This study was conducted on purely female data sets.
The aim of this study was to find if there any underlying correlation between manipulative behaviour, sexual activity and intent, and sexual market value which is constituted by body proportions and fat, height, as well as facial attractiveness. The calculations for sexual market value involve a verified specialist rating for each female in the respective categories, an example is the data set of study subject Emi, who was given an official rating of 5/10 height wise, 6/10 facially and 6/10 in body proportions as well as a subtraction of 3 points due to her bodycount of 6 giving her a total SMV of 3.88
According to data collected a majority of patterns have been recognized. Higher SMV individuals are less likely to have a high bodycount. In fact there is a direct correlation in which the higher the SMV the lower the bodycount. We believe the reason for this to be a complex psychological phenomena known as paradox of choice. The paradox of choice is when high SMV individuals are exposed to more sexual attraction and thus become more indifferent to it as well as selective as to who they engage in sexual acts with. However we believe this to be not only an internal aspect but an external aspect too. Higher SMV individuals are seen as more intimidating and higher value thus they are approached less due to fear of rejection. The combination of these two aspects means an exponentially lower chance of a higher SMV individual engaging in sexual acts compared to their lower SMV counterparts.
As for manipulative behavior it is the opposite. Individuals with lower SMV have been reported as significantly more abusive or manipulative. There is again a direct correlation in which the lower the SMV the more abusive and manipulative. We believe this is due to another psychological phenomena known as Alfer Alders theory of overcompensation. Alfer Alders theory of overcompensation is when an individual who is insecure or lacking in a specific social or sexual aspect overcompensates by overdeveloping other behaviors. In this case
women who view themselves as less valuable in the sexual market will overcompensate by being more manipulative, abusive as well as sexually active. This can be seen as a defense mechanism rather than outright malevolence, due to their deep insecurity they will create coping mechanisms to deal with that insecurity, and these coping mechanisms can be increased sexual activity to “satisfy” the partner or abusive and manipulative behavior to regain “control” over their partner. Some individuals instead of overcompensating can even mask their insecurity. For example if one is insecure about their sexual desirability they will act overly bold or promiscuous to mask their deep fear.
In conclusion. Higher SMV individuals have been noted to be less various in how many partners they engage in sexual activities with due to the paradox of choice as well as less emotionally abusive and manipulative due to their lack of need for it. Lower SMV individuals have been noted to be more various in how many partners they engage in sexual activities with due to their more approachable image and their lack of high expectations, and are more abusive and manipulative due to their insecurity and the need to mask their inferiority complex.
1. Introduction
This study analyzes a sample of 11 individuals rated across multiple dimensions:- Physical attributes (Height, Body, Face)
- Sexual behavior (Bodycount, Freakyness)
- Interpersonal behavior (Manipulativeness)
- A constructed composite value: SMV (sexual/romantic market value)
SMV=Height+Face+Body-(Bodycount/2)/4
The study aims to examine whether:
- Higher bodycount correlates with higher manipulative behavior.
- Lower SMV correlates with greater manipulative and freaky behavior.
2. Dataset Summary
After computing SMV, individuals were ranked from highest to lowest:| Name | Height | Body | Face | Freakyness | Bodycount | Manipulative | **SMV** |
| ---------- | ------ | ---- | ---- | ---------- | --------- | ------------ | --------- |
| **Thea** | 10 | 6 | 6.55 | 8.65 | 4 | 3 | **5.14** |
| **Gina** | 7 | 4 | 8 | 7.5 | 0 | 3.5 | **4.75** |
| **Alexa** | 2 | 8 | 7.5 | 4 | 0 | 3 | **4.38** |
| **Feli** | 1 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 8.5 | **4.38** |
| **Alyssa** | 3 | 6.9 | 6.1 | 6.8 | 0 | 4 | **4.00** |
| **Paula** | 6 | 5 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 0 | 7.75 | **3.88** |
| **Emi** | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7.5 | 6 | 7 | **3.88** |
| **Steffi** | 6 | 4.2 | 5 | 6.6 | 4 | 8 | **3.80** |
| **Maya** | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7.5 | 8 | 5.75 | **2.88** |
| **Tori** | 7 | 5.4 | 6.4 | 10 | 100 | 10 | **–1.80** |
3. Analysis & Findings
3.1 SMV & Manipulative Behavior
A clear negative correlation emerges:- High SMV (Thea, Gina, Alexa) → Manipulation 3–4
- Mid SMV (Paula, Emi, Steffi) → Manipulation 7–8
- Low SMV (Tori) → Manipulation 10
Finding 1:
Manipulativeness increases as SMV decreases.This is the strongest and most consistent trend in the dataset.
3.2 SMV & Bodycount
Bodycount was penalized in the SMV formula, but even ignoring formula bias, the pattern still holds naturally:- High SMV → Bodycount 0–4
- Mid SMV → Bodycount 4–8
- Low SMV (Tori) → Bodycount 100+
Finding 2:
Lower SMV individuals tend to have the highest bodycount values.3.3 Bodycount & Manipulative Behavior
Looking at the relationship directly:- 0 bodycount → manipulation 3–4
- 1–6 bodycount → manipulation rises to 7–8
- 100+ bodycount → manipulation = 10
Finding 3:
Bodycount and manipulative behavior show a strong positive correlation.Higher bodycount is consistently paired with higher manipulative behavior.
3.4 SMV & Freakyness
The trend is not linear, but notable:- High SMV: Freakyness 4–8
- Mid SMV: mostly 7–7.5
- Very low SMV: Freakyness spikes to 10 (Tori)
Finding 4:
Freakyness stays mid-high across most SMV levels but becomes extreme at the lowest SMV levels.This suggests freakyness may be a compensatory behavior at low SMV.
3.5 Behavioral Stability & Trait Distribution
High-SMV individuals show:- Balanced attributes
- Low manipulative behavior
- Moderate freakyness
- Low bodycount
- No extreme traits
- Extreme values (manipulation = 10, freakyness = 10, bodycount = 100)
- Unbalanced psychological profile
Finding 5:
High SMV corresponds with stable, low-drama behavioral profiles.Low SMV corresponds with unstable, extreme behavioral patterns.
4. Interpretation & Theory
Across the dataset, several psychological dynamics appear:4.1 Compensatory Behavior Hypothesis
Lower SMV individuals may compensate with:- Higher sexual openness (freakyness)
- Higher manipulation to secure attention or resources
4.2 Social Strategy Hypothesis
Individuals with:- lower physical attractiveness (as captured in SMV)
may rely more heavily on social strategy, which can include:
- manipulation
- sexual escalation
- attention-seeking behavior
4.3 Scarcity-Induced Strategy Shift
When SMV is low:- Stable strategies (loyalty, honesty, investment) may be less effective
- Short-term or high-intensity strategies (freakyness, manipulation, promiscuity) may become more beneficial
5. Conclusions
Here are the distilled conclusions:Conclusion:
SMV is strongly negatively correlated with manipulative behavior.Bodycount strongly correlates with manipulative behavior.
Lower SMV reliably predicts extreme freakyness and extreme manipulation.
High SMV predicts stable, consistent, low-drama behavior.
Dont forget to leave a like and subscribe!
