The 5 Vectors of Female Attraction- A Restoration

Several weeks back SSM, while she was still around, allowed me to submit a guest post on some ideas of mine about what women found attractive in men. The result was a post about my “LAMPS” system, which was an attempt to explain and categorize female attraction vectors (Vector defined: a quantity that has magnitude and direction and that is commonly represented by a directed line segment whose length represents the magnitude and whose orientation in space represents the direction). I found that term accurate, because the five categories each vary in importance and order (space) depending on the woman. The first part of this post will be a copy of what I sent Mary, exactly as it was. After the original, I will add in some further thoughts and clarifications . The comments after the original post were excellent, and I will try and capture the essence of those I can remember.  Unfortunately, Google-Cache did not save them. Now on to the original post:

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Five Vectors of Female Attraction to Men

It has long been understood in the Manosphere that male and female attractiveness vectors are very, very different.

What men are looking for in women is easy enough to determine: youth and beauty. Beauty can vary depending on culture, but there are still certain physical features in women that carry across most cultures: a feminine face with strong facial symmetry, large breasts, a low waist-to-hip ratio, smooth and unblemished skin, etc. These vectors are almost all purely visual, and therefore it is usually quite easy for a man to quickly gauge a woman’s attractiveness on the standard 1-10 scale.

The same cannot be said for what women find attractive in men. While nearly everyone agrees that what women are looking for is different, there haven’t been very many good formulations of exactly what vectors attract women. The usual descriptor is “Alpha”, but this is a very imprecise term. This lack of clarity bothered me, so I thought on it for a while and eventually designed my own system. I narrowed the various traits and attributes down to 5 vectors, which I believe to be a fairly comprehensive understanding of what women look for in men when it comes to attraction. Before I explain the 5 vectors, I need to lay a foundation by explaining the impulses which drive female behavior.

Hypergamy is the name for the female socio-sexual strategy, which involves a woman establishing a monogamous relationship with the highest status/value male available to her (there is some question as to whether the man himself must have a higher status than the woman). It is important to note that this is a “soft” or serial monogamous relationship, as compared to “hard” or lifetime monogamy. The female does not want to be bound to the male “until death do you part.” She instead wants to be with him so long as he is the best available male; if a better male comes along she will seek to abandon her present mate and “trade up” to the newer, better man. Credit goes to Dalrock for keying me into this behavior.

Hypergamy is the strategy, but what are the goals? There are three impulses which drive women to do what they do:

1-      Have sex with the best available male. The purpose of this is so that her children have the best genetics possible, and thus the best chance of surviving and thriving.

2-      Protection. Women and their children need protection from hostile males, and from natural threats. Women want a man who will keep her safe, and even more important, make her feel safe.

3-      Provision. A woman wants a man who will be able to provide for her and her children. The more resources available to her and her children, the healthier they will be and the better the chance of survival.

Now that we have that out of the way, the five Vectors of Female Attraction to Men are as follows:

Looks

Athleticism

Money

Power

Status

(LAMPS for short)

Looks: This includes physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and strong masculine features in a man’s face. It can also include healthy skin, healthy and good looking hair, and other external features. Youthfulness is featured here as well, but it is valued far less by women than men, probably because age doesn’t impact male fertility as much as it affects female fertility. In my opinion this tends to be the least important vector for women.

Relevance: Physical looks can be a strong indicator of genetic health. A good looking man is more likely to produce healthy children. From either an evolutionary or biblical standpoint, it would make sense for a woman to want to choose a father who will create healthier children. God would want to help make this easier for women, so he gave her this way of gauging genetic health.

Athleticism: Here we have the overall physical attributes of a man. His strength, muscle tone, endurance, dexterity and general athletic ability. I tend to view this as being in the middle of the pack in terms of importance to most women.

Relevance: This vector showcases all three impulses for women. From an evolutionary perspective an athletic man is more likely to produce healthy children. Also, he will be more capable of both providing for the woman and her children, as well as protecting them from harm. From a biblical perspective, an athletic man is one best suited to enduring the Curse of Adam from Genesis. God declared that Man must work for his bread after being cast from the Garden, and so a more athletic man would be best able to handle this burden.

Money: This attribute includes both the amount of resources that a man can call upon in the present, as well as what he might be able to make or create in the future. This doesn’t necessarily mean just money; real property and other assets can be included as well. I view this as the second weakest attribute in terms of importance.

Relevance: This attribute is tied primarily to the provision impulse, and is probably the strongest indicator of a man’s ability to provide. It is the most “Beta” of the attributes here, but is also an Alpha attribute as well. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a fairly straightforward analysis. A man with resources is a man who can provide for a woman and her children during even harsh times. Also, in the past a man with a lot of resources available was someone who was probably quite good at providing, and thus probably athletic and high-status as well. So in this sense Money could serve as a proxy for other attributes.  From a biblical perspective things become a little more difficult to explain. In more than one section of the Bible money is considered a source of sin and/or something to be avoided, although it is never rejected in full. Perhaps one way of looking at it is that a man with money is a man blessed by God, and someone who finds favor in His eyes.

Power: This is a short-hand for masculine power, or masculinity. Although in my view masculinity is power when it comes to attraction and relationships.  As an attribute, Power includes a lot of Alpha traits which are commonly discussed on Game sites. Things such as confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, a commanding presence and indomitability would fall here. It does not include the power one has from any position of authority; that falls under status. When a woman fitness tests a man, she is trying to assess his masculinity. Rubbing against his manhood, as it were (I always liked this analogy; I just wish I could remember who thought it up). If the man can’t stand up to a woman, then he clearly can’t stand up to other men, so his Power value will diminish in her eyes. Power is entirely personal to the man; it is based on his own unique characteristics and charisma. In my opinion this is the most important attribute when it comes to female attraction. If a man fails here, then ultimately attraction cannot be sustained.

Relevance: This attribute doesn’t fall clearly into either the provision or protection impulse, but has relevance to them. The thing to understand is that a man’s ability to protect a family and provide for them is not purely physical; it has a strong mental component to it. Power helps serve as a proxy for a man’s mental state, and from an evolutionary perspective would likely help guide a women in deciding if a man is capable of protecting and providing for her. Since dominant, masculine men tend to do better than lesser men, this makes sense. Also, there is a definite clear-cut connection between Power and the female impulse to secure access to the best available male genetic material. From a biblical perspective, it makes me wonder if there is a connection between masculinity and righteousness. It takes a certain measure of self-control to resist evil, and to overcome it when confronted. Perhaps a righteous man with a high Power value has an easier time resisting temptation when he comes across it. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that women view a man’s self-mastery in certain areas to be a sign of weakness, the opposite of power.

Status: The social position of the man is what is meant by status and is principally based on where he is on the social ladder. It includes how well respected he is by those around him, whether they are above him or below him in station. Any authority that a man can exercise in the community based on his position would fall under here. Think Big Fish or Small Fish; the bigger the fish, the more attractive a man is. Fitness testing also falls under here to a degree as well, because a man who fails a test is probably low status and used to being bossed around. “Social Proof” or “Pre-Selection” doesn’t exactly fall under here. Rather, that idea serves as a short-cut or proxy for women to try and determine if the man has status or money or power. To sum Status up, it is based not on anything inherent to the man, but rather his general position in society. This is probably the second most important attribute.

Relevance: Status is similar to Power, in that it doesn’t directly connect to any of the attributes, but hints at all three. An evolutionary perspective would provide for the theory that women use a man’s status as a yard-stick to measure his overall competence. The more important and higher status a man is, the better the catch. A biblical perspective would perhaps support the notion that status might show favor from God.

I don’t think that there is a universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. I view it as a sliding scale myself. As long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. This system is one of my own design, but a number of bloggers greatly helped in the formation thanks to their ideas and discussions. Vox Day, Rollo Tomassi and Dalrock are chief amongst them. And thank you Sunshine Mary for giving me the chance to explain this idea more fully.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Further thoughts:

As many commentators pointed out, I forgot to include height somewhere. Many opined that it should be its own category, but the truth is that I had it under Looks and forgot to include it in the post. This caused several to argue that the inclusion of height pushed Looks to probably the second most important attribute. I think that there is some truth to this, in a fashion. As I thought more about it, I realized that both Looks and Athleticism are the two vectors which women can analyze easiest. This means that they often act as “screens”, to filter out men and allow a women a more narrow and focused search. For shorter men, this can be a huge disadvantage. However, this is I think an subconscious filter in women, and so one that a man can overcome later by regaining the woman’s attention. Remember, attraction means to gain attention or notice. So a short man might be skipped over initially, but he can compensate through the other vectors.

Some wondered about why certain things fell under Looks, and some fell under Athleticism. Both are categories of physical attributes, to be sure, but there is a major distinction between the two. Looks encompasses those things that someone has no control over (except by surgery). Athleticism, on the other hand, includes those physical attributes which a man can control, through dieting and exercise. So height falls under Looks, but weight falls under Athleticism. So if you are unsure about whether an  a physical attribute falls under Looks or Athleticism, ask if it is something that a man has any real control over.

Both money and status are very similar, as they are external to the man. Part of me was very tempted to lump them together under just status, but the truth is that they aren’t necessarily linked. It is possible, though rare, for a man to have lots of Money but be low Status. Much more common for him to have little Money but high Status.

There is more than what I have here, unfortunately this is all I can remember right now. If I should recall anything I will likely update the post below this point.

Advertisements

33 Comments

Filed under LAMPS, Sunshine Mary

33 responses to “The 5 Vectors of Female Attraction- A Restoration

  1. deti

    And the one uniquely masculine attribute is Power. Because Power is what makes a male a man –“confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, a commanding presence and indomitability”. In men these are attractive and edifying. In women these are, well, bitchy.

  2. Quite right. The female counter-part is femininity, and is in some instances the polar opposite of what is attractive in masculine Power. I don’t imagine this to be a coincidence.

    Otherwise, the remaining all can be present in women. But only Looks is highly relevant to female attractiveness. Athleticism plays some role, mostly with regards to weight and having the proper balance. But Status and Money have no bearing on female attractiveness whatsoever (although they may have an impact on the man’s attractiveness).

  3. Pingback: Alpha versus Beta- Part 1 | Donal Graeme

  4. thehap

    I am so bummed that the original of this has vanished from the web. I had it bookmarked so I could reference it.

    Deti, do you think you could somehow regenerate your magnificent comments for this site? You summed it up rather succinctly above, but the full house would be nice.

  5. Bravo. I followed your link from http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/show-and-tell/. It was NOT a disappointing case of self-adulation. I am weak on success and status. But, as Game asserts women are instinctive first and last. I can control my POWER because that is masculinity. I really like your clarity of thoughtfully chosen vocabulary to put together the LAMPS framework of male SMV. Make evaluation a snap. I can work on my A and the all-important P. I can take P as high as I want. I.e. always act like a man. Interesting. Can a homeless bum display masculinity? Interesting thought experiment.

    You might want to opine on how clothes fit into your system: I’d guess STATUS. I know you call it LAMPS, but with P being so important, I like to think of it as lamPs. 🙂

  6. “Can a homeless bum display masculinity? ”

    Yes. Masculinity is as much about what you do, as who you are. With a strong enough Power value, it doesn’t matter terribly much if you are really weak in another vector.

    As for clothes, I think you are right, they would be a status indicator.

  7. Pingback: Why do Christian women perpetuate myths about attraction? | Sunshine Mary

  8. Pingback: Looking for The One- Episode 1: Location, Location, Location | Donal Graeme

  9. Pingback: Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction? | Sunshine Mary

  10. Pingback: Are women attracted to a man’s intelligence? | Sunshine Mary

  11. Pingback: The ABCs of Marital Happiness | Donal Graeme

  12. Pingback: News You Can Use | Donal Graeme

  13. Pingback: Going APE- What Attributes do Women Find Attractive in Men? Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status (LAMPS) | Donal Graeme

  14. Pingback: Blog Status Recap-July 2013 | Donal Graeme

  15. Pingback: 100th Post Blogapalooza | Donal Graeme

  16. Pingback: Women’s arrogance and the downfall of assortive mating. | Sunshine Mary

  17. Pingback: Should a Single Woman Know Where She Ranks on the “1-10 Scale”? | Donal Graeme

  18. Larxene

    To make it easier to remember, since the second and third way of fulfilling their hypergamy starts with a “P”, perhaps you can call the first factor, “Procreation”.

  19. That is a really solid idea Larxene. Procreation, Provision and Protection. Has a nice ring to it. When I get a chance I will update the newer post with this.

  20. Larxene

    “… if a better male comes along she will seek to abandon her present mate and “trade up” to the newer, better man.”

    Kinda shows how the females who complain about men who trade up to a younger and hotter model are partly projecting their own mating strategies.

    “…Have sex with the best available male. The purpose of this is so that her children have the best genetics possible, and thus the best chance of surviving and thriving.”

    “Thriving” implies that the children they bear are going to be attractive enough to mate with the best partners, and that their grandchildren in turn are able to attract high value mates, creating a virtuous cycle. Clever wording, but needs fleshing out.

    “…and even more important, make her feel safe.”

    How does one make a female feel safe, and why do we need to make them feel safe?

    “A good looking man is more likely to produce healthy children.”

    Interesting. What is healthy is what we are attracted to. Hmmm, those people who don’t have this trait of being attracted to healthy people probably have gone extinct.

    “From an evolutionary perspective an athletic man is more likely to produce healthy children.”

    How so? Please elaborate.

    “It is the most “Beta” of the attributes here, but is also an Alpha attribute as well.”

    For it to be “Alpha”, a person needs to have significantly more money than those around him. A King’s wealth would be “Alpha”.

    The issue with money is this. Ever since the agrarian era (and made worse by the industrial era) we have progressively less problems with food supply, and jobs gradually became more “standardised” (especially in the industrial era), which means that our financial differences became less pronounced. This decrease in the discrepancy of incomes between males led to the diminishing importance of this factor.

    Furthermore, when women were released into the workplace, the large supply of employees led to a further decrease in the average income of males. At the same time, the financial difference between the average male and female became narrower.

    Today, money is barely important since the average woman can procure the money they need to buy the food that in the past they would have hunt for, which would require that they procure the assistance of a male.

    However, if you have LOTS of them, and you target females whose families are poor, this factor will still be VERY important. That’s why women in 3rd world countries are more likely to value a rich man than women in 1st world countries.

    The main idea is, if there’s not much difference, why compare them? Only if there are significant differences will there be a need for comparison.

    “Status is similar to Power…but hints at all three.”

    Does status indicate Procreativeness? Another way to look at it: do people who are more physically healthy and visually appealing have higher status? Sounds like an obvious question…but I’m not convinced yet.

    ===

    The importance of Masculine Power explain why LTR based blogs like MMSL advocate dominance as the main tool for attracting one’s wife.

    Looks and Athleticism pertains to the physical body, and they require long term effort to change, and even then there are limits to how high you can go. Money and Status are also physical entities, pertaining to a man’s external environment and his relation to it. However, these things, being physical things, like Looks and Athleticism, require long term efforts to change.

    Power, on the other hand, is wholly mental, and mental things are somewhat more malleable and easier to change than physical things. It is something that you can work on right away and will bring results even if exercised in the short term.

    You can change someone’s opinion on something by talking to them, but you cannot change someone’s weight or height just by talking to them, that requires more than talking and convincing.

    It also explains some of the things that PUAs do, like negging, making the woman do things for him rather than doing things for her, etc.

  21. Pingback: Is it possible to generate sexual attraction in a marriage where there has never been any? | Sunshine Mary

  22. Pingback: The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish

  23. Pingback: Understanding Attraction | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  24. Pingback: Women are heavily influenced by men’s opinions. | Sunshine Mary

  25. Pingback: One-Year Blogiversary: Reflections | Donal Graeme

  26. I believe that this post is amazing and basically includes everything there is to what women want in a man.
    But i do believe you’re missing out on a few factors here, like intelligence and other skills that can be trained. For example, I come from india, here I’ve asked women what they basically desire in a man and amongst all their needs they want a man who ‘knows.’ This shows their need for an intelligent man. You also forgot to include some mental and emotional factors that are not ‘screened’ to a woman. Like empathy and understanding of women. In the past i have faced problems with women, because i did not completely understand them and I know other men who have had problems cause of the same.
    I have thought hard about this and i have not been able to include them in any of the LAMPS vectors. To me altering atheleticism to ‘skills that can be trained’ seems like a good idea.
    Another idea that popped in my head while reading this was ,”Wow. Everything is so vastly connected to the production of testosterone in a man’s body.”
    Looks: Masculinity is a result of the testosterone in our body.
    Athleticism: Playing a sport is a huge factor in the production of testosterone and being better at them.
    Power: Confidence and assertiveness are clear evidences of the male hormones in our body.
    Even though the testosterone levels are not directly linked to money and status they affect the results of our attempts to attain money and status as shown by this (http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/sozialewahrnehmung/sozialewahrnehmung.htm.)
    In conclusion i would say this system of determining what is deemed attractive in a man by a woman is impeccable, in spite of a few tweaks which i pointed out in the beginning.

  27. @ Vishesh

    Intelligence can fall into two different categories. If you are talking about raw intelligence, that would probably fall best under the Power category. A man who can exercise his intellect to impress women would be able to greatly amplify his Power value in their eyes. Education, on the other hand, is a status marker. As would be most other “trained skills.” Those are all things which are valued because of the role and value that society gives them.

    Empathy isn’t an attractive trait in men. Its just not. Now, a general sense of cluelessness might turn a woman off, but that is because women want a man who “Just Gets It.” But being able to empathize with them doesn’t make you more attractive. The way to understand how a lack of understanding women plays out is that it also falls under the Status category. It demonstrates that a man doesn’t have a lot of experience with women, a sort of “Anti-Preselection” if you will.

    Yeah, testosterone does play a huge role. Thanks for the link, I will be sure to take a look there later.

  28. Pingback: A Christian understanding of attraction | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  29. Pingback: Analyzing Attraction- Part 1 | Donal Graeme

  30. Terry Link

    I am happy you take a Christian perspective into this, because being “red pill” and Christian is not an easy task. I wanted to say a few things about your Christian perspectives.
    First, it is the love of money that is the sin, not the money itself. The love of it will override our values and cause us to act sinfully to attain it.
    Second, I feel that masculinity is what helps me resist peer pressure and compromise my principles. I catch a lot of crap for being Christian. I feel that one must be good at being a man before one can stand up to society and be a good man. Red pill philosophy really does help in this regard.

  31. Terry,

    You might like Deep Strength’s take on this post. He used it as a springboard to examine why these things are attractive. Link:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/a-christian-understanding-of-attraction/

  32. Pingback: Compilation of advice for men struggling in their marriage | Christianity and masculinity

  33. Pingback: June Cleaver might be unmarriageble right now. | American Dad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s