Exploring Ideas and Questioning Myself- Episode 1

This is going to be a rather uneven and disjointed post, as I intend to seek out the opinions of fellow bloggers and readers about some subjects which I’ve been thinking about lately. Mostly they concern ideas/theories which I have long held to be true, but now want second opinions about.

A Seller’s Market

Ever since I became acquainted with the Red Pill, I have believed that there were far more men who could be considered marriageable than women. Especially when it came to Christians; it has been my contention for a while that the number of chaste (even purposefully chaste) Christian men is greater by far than the number of chaste Christian women.  I’ve always just assumed this, and never really gave it a whole lot of thought until recently. Given what I (think I) know about the current SMP/MMP, plus male/female attraction filters and the like, it would stand to reason that my belief is accurate.

If so, then it would appear to me that we are currently in a sellers market to a significant degree. A marriageable woman should be able to pick and choose amongst a variety of potential suitors. Furthermore, most such women should be able to easily satisfy their hypergamous instincts by “marrying up” to a man whose SMV is higher than their own. Given the dearth of women worthy to be wives, men would have to look down in SMV for mates, because the men above them have likely already taken their SMV equals for themselves. All of which means that a chaste Christian woman, to be specific, is sitting in the catbird’s seat when it comes to the MMP. [Of course, that ignores search and time costs inherent with any kind effort for her to find a husband.]

So the question is, am I off with my assessment? Or do my readers agree?

Male and Female Commitment

It is generally agreed upon that women are much more selective when it comes to attraction filters than men. I’ve written on the subject of female attraction before to explain how. Numbers often thrown around, although without anything more than anecdote as backing, state that men find roughly 50% of women attractive and women find only about 20% of men attractive. I don’t know if that is true or not. What I do know is that while men may find more women attractive than vice versa, that doesn’t mean that men are inclined to commit to those women. Just because a man wants to have sex with a woman doesn’t mean that he wants to commit to her. As part of this,  I believe that men filter for commitment fare more stringently that women do for attraction. A simple graphic I created a while back illustrates this:

Speaking for myself, I will admit that when it comes to commitment I am rather wary. While my religious beliefs play a role in this, and no doubt the legal climate does as well, I suspect that men are hard-wired to be wary of commitment. Just as eggs are expensive for a woman, and so she must be careful whom she sleeps with, commitment is also expensive for men, and so they must be careful whom they invest in.

What I am curious about is if women also filter for men commitment from men in a similar way. Will women accept commitment from any man that they find attractive, or do they have a further set of requirements past the LAMPS categories. I assume that they do, and yet the argument from many quarters seems to be that “tingles uber alles”, or attraction is king. But clearly some women have certain desirable or comfort traits they look for in men, in addition to being attractive. I guess the question is whether those filters are as important for women as they are for men. My suspicion is that they aren’t; women are often willing to trade them away under the right circumstances.

What are my reader’s thoughts on the matter?

Tone Over Bulk

This topic isn’t nearly as deep, but do most men prefer tone over bulk when it comes to women and muscle? Stingray has re-posted an old post of hers called Hitting the Gym over at the new group blog Girls Being Girls, and it covers female exercise. While full of tips, she ends the post with this caveat:

One last thing, you can take lifting weights as far as your body will allow it.  However, you should be aware of what your husband finds attractive.  Some men do not like overt muscles on a woman.  If this is the case, use lower weights with higher repetitions.  You will gain tone without bulk or striations.  Some men do find it very attractive and they admire the discipline behind what it takes to achieve.  It’s really up to you (and your genetics) how far you wish to take it.

Count me in the category of men who prefer tone over bulk. Some overt muscles are alright in my book, but when it comes to the upper body I definitely prefer tone. For the legs I can make an exception, muscled legs don’t bother me, and might even be a plus in my book. The stomach/abs might be another area where some (but not a lot) of overt muscles are fine. But I happen to find too much muscle on women in the upper body area unfeminine, and think it detracts from the woman’s attractiveness. This is how I figured most men thought, so I’m curious to see if there is a general consensus on the matter.

Does this jive with my male readers? Do you prefer tone over bulk, or have certain areas where one might be more acceptable than the other?

Whatever Happened to Your Sunday Best?

Is it just me, or has the quality of clothing worn by people inside Church become truly pathetic? Both the men and women at the Mass/service I attended yesterday wore clothing that would have been appropriate for home or going to the store, not for Church.

I was the only man present who was dressed in a suit, and I could count on one hand the number of men who wore nice shirts and slacks. Otherwise, t-shirts of various stripes and colors seemed to be the most common clothes worn by the men. There was even one man (I dare say he doesn’t qualify as a gentleman at this point) who was wearing a sports jersey. Not a few wore shorts.

Sadly, the women attending were no better. Just as many women wore pants as men, and only a few of those women wore nice blouses to compensate. Only a handful of women at church were wearing dresses or skirts, which is a pity, because they added some class (which was desperately needed). Fortunately, I did not see any women wearing clothes that were too revealing or tasteless. Sadly, that isn’t always the case. The younger women are especially prone to this; the fact that few seemed to be in attendance might have been the reason for the absence of tastelessness. Oh, and no head coverings that I could see, either.

The weather was no excuse for the informal clothing; it wasn’t hot at all but was rather a pleasant day. Nor was the temperature inside the church any different.  I wish that the Church was more proactive when it came to telling people to wear clothing appropriate to Church. For Catholics especially this should be true, because are supposed to treat Masses (services) as celebrations. And here is what Jesus said about dressing for celebrations:

Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: ² “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. ³ He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. ⁴ Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ ⁵ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, ⁶ while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. ⁷ The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. ⁸ Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. ⁹ Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ ¹⁰ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.

¹¹ “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, ¹² and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. ¹³ Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ ¹⁴ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The Christian Family and Understanding God’s Authority

Someone by the name of Lisa who recently stumbled across this blog (or perhaps has known about it a while but has been quiet) provided me with a link to a great article concerning marriage, submission and headship in a Catholic Christian context. This was in response to my previous posts, Sins of Omission Part 1 and Sins of Omission Part 2,  on the subject of Catholic teaching about sex and marriage. The article, titled Wives, Obey Your Husbands, was written by Fr. Christopher Rengers. His bio:

Fr. Christopher Rengers, O.F.M. Cap., was ordained in 1942 and did graduate work in history at St. Louis University. His assignments have been teaching, parochial and hospital work, and promoting devotion to St. Joseph and Our Lady of Guadalupe. Books in print are Mary of the Americas and The Youngest Prophet, both by Alba House. His last article in HPR appeared in the April 1996 issue.

The entire article is too long to quote in full, so I’ll instead mention some of the more pertinent sections. My commentary will be sparse, as most of the material speaks for itself. I will start with the introduction:

Authority means the right to command. It implies the right to make a choice for another person. The other person, meaning the one who is commanded, does not thereby lose freedom. He can choose to obey or disobey. He may ask for a reason. He may cite circumstances that will influence the person who has the authority to change his command, to alter it, or to cancel it. But if the person having authority is not convinced, and re-states his command, then the one commanded has again the simple choice of obeying or disobeying.

This paragraph serves as an important reminder to us that we always have choices in life. We may not like the choices, we may consider some to not be much choice at all, but we always have a choice.  For Christians, the principal choice we must make is whether or not to obey God.

Two Co-Pilots Not Logical

A family with no true authority vested in one person will be rudderless in the stormy sea of life as it exists on this earth. It will not be able to survive crises that inevitably develop, when choice is deadlocked. The example may be given of an airplane. It needs a pilot and a co-pilot. To have two copilots with equal choice in moments of need and crisis will end in disaster. The same can be said of a ship or of an automobile. The ship needs a captain. The auto needs a driver. Two people cannot steer a car through a maze of traffic, if both have equal choice in steering. Sooner or later, a situation will come up where one will brake while the other steps on the gas. One will veer to the left and the other to the right. The copilot in a plane may be more skilled than the pilot, the driver of a car less skilled than a passenger, but when the plane is in motion and the car moves along the road, the pilot and the driver have to be in command.

This is perhaps the most obvious and logical argument why there must be some kind of hierarchy in a family. Unless there is a clear chain of command, you will have spouses working against one another, possibly with disastrous results.

Helps Understand God’s Authority

Logically too, for anybody who believes in a personal God, there has to be a strong recognition of and example of authority in the family, if all concerned are to understand the authority of God. It is necessary for the father of a family to know he has authority and use it, if he is to recognize God’s authority over him. It is necessary for the wife to recognize and submit to the husband’s authority, if she is to understand God’s authority over her. It is necessary for the children to have an observable model of authority used and heeded, and to follow it themselves, if they are to be truly submissive to God. Where the authority is over-exercised or mean, children will tend to fear or rebel against God. Where it is underexercised, they will tend to have a sentimental, buddy-buddy relationship with God and minimize his laws.

This argument is one I hadn’t seen before, but I found particularly powerful. I have heard something similar in that a proper Christian marriage is similar to our relationship with God, and thus a model for the parents. But I hadn’t considered before the impact that a proper Christian marriage would have on children. Observing proper authority and hierarchy in action would have to have a positive influence for children as they grow up, to give them guidelines on how to live Christian lives.

The Teaching of St. Paul

St. Paul in chapter five of Ephesians says (v. 22 – 24) “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord: because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.” The rest of what St. Paul says makes quite clear that this subjection is not a slavish subjection, but one which holds for both husband and wife an obligation to love each other. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, St. Paul starts his chapter with an exhortation to be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. In chapter six, he exhorts slaves to obey their masters as they would Christ. The various passages have been construed as reflecting the cultural situation of the time. The dwelling on headship and love in regard to husband and wife, however, link headship and love together in a much stronger way. Paul wants them to be co-existent and he draws out and refers to “the mystery” of Christ and the Church. The union of husband and wife illustrates this mystery of close unity. It is a unique unity, but as the unity of Jesus and the Church has him as the head to the body, so the unity of husband and wife has the husband as head to his own body. It is rather difficult to relegate this strong comparison to the area of culture only. The stronger indication is that St. Paul is teaching a truth about God’s plan for marriage in its fullest beauty and ideal state.

While there is nothing unique about this line of thought, it is still a solid argument for why St. Paul was not speaking in a cultural context.

Conclusion

I found it heartening to read this article and know that some in the priesthood haven’t given in to cowardice or taken a bite out of the feminist apple. I can only hope that the recent homilies (sermons for the non-Catholics out there) I’ve heard about choosing to obey God’s laws over worldly laws are a sign that the Church is beginning to assume an overt counter-cultural position. Because when you get down to it, culture is worldly in nature, not Godly; which means that Christianity is always, should always, be counter-cultural.

Positive Feedback

I was walking about town today, and while passing a shop my eyes caught sight of something that caused me to stop in my tracks. Near the front of the shop stood a young lady acting as a greeter. That in itself was not what caught my attention. Nor necessarily was it the young lady herself. She was pretty, in good shape, and with a pleasant smile; but nothing truly exceptional. No, it was her clothes that caught my eye. She wore a nice enough blouse, but she was wearing a floral-patterned skirt that was eye-catching in its beauty and elegance. In fact, it was such a lovely skirt that I felt compelled to walk inside the store and let her know how much I admired it. I informed her that I saw so many women these days who wore clothes that made them look like a man or like a slut [Update: I didn’t use that word, but instead tramp and several other descriptive terms which made my intent clear], that it was a real pleasure to see a woman dressing like an actual woman. The compliment caught her off-guard, and it caused her to blush somewhat, but I could tell that it meant a lot to her.

As I walked out of the store, I realized that my words to her would more likely than not influence her decision to wear that skirt again. Indeed, she might even choose clothes similar in nature, in the hopes of garnering the same kind of positive response. Upon thinking the matter over it occurred to me that this is exactly what we men should be doing. If we want women to dress in feminine clothes (and we should want this), we need to make it clear to them that we appreciate it when they do. Positive feedback is important to try and establish good behaviors. Women hear so much fashion “advice” these days which is truly awful it is imperative that those of us who appreciate feminine women dressing the part encourage women to do just that. So I have adopted something of a new policy for myself: assuming I have the time, if I see a woman who is dressed in a pleasant feminine fashion, I will thank her for it.  One relatively easy way to make the world a better place, one step at a time.

Update: Lovelyleblanc7 reminds me that she wrote a post a few days ago which covered Feminine Dress. I would be remiss not to link it.

The Latent Threat: Male Dominance and the Capacity for Violence

The Shadow Knight wrote a guest post for Sunshine Mary which she recently published. Titled “The Stabilizing Influence of Masculine Dominance in Women’s Lives“, it addresses how women have a physical and psychological need for men through dominant sex and a dominant masculine presence in their life. The initial comments are worthwhile too , because many of them try and grasp the extent and nature of masculine dominance. One potential aspect for masculine dominance that is brought up several times, and which sparked my interest, is a man’s potential and ability when it comes to violence. This got me thinking, and re-examining some of what I had previously written on the subject.

Then I read When Women Rage over at Sarah’s Daughter. While the overall purpose of the posts was different, there was a constant theme/idea which showed up in both: the male capacity for violence. Here is what SD had to say:

Fast forward a few years. We were no longer having fights of this nature. I had been reading the Bible and marriage books trying to change the rage within me. It wasn’t completely gone, unfortunately. We were driving to a meeting and again, I don’t remember what our argument was about, I was likely being very disrespectful and snotty and he’d had enough. He said something to me I didn’t like and I threw my coffee at him. He pulled the car over quick, reached across and grabbed my neck, pinned me up against the car door and informed me how I will never do anything like that again.

I haven’t.

RLB can, quite easily kill me with one hand. I learned that that night and have never wanted to incite him in that way again. The realization of his strength and willingness to use it has contributed greatly to my very high attraction to him.

It was the realization of the full measure of his power over her which I believe ultimately changed the way that SD interacted with her husband. SD mentions that she respects her husband now, and that it drives her current behavior, not fear. I must disagree. Fear and respect are joined at the hip, where there is one the other usually resides. SD still fears her husband, but that fear has been trumped or overcome by her respect for her husband. Setting the fear/respect dichotomy aside, one thing is clear: SD became more attracted to her husband based on that encounter; an encounter which not only highlighted RLB’s strength but his ability to commit violence.

I have written before about how men and women need one another in different ways. In The Need and The Void, I explored a bit into how men need women. Here is some of what I have said elsewhere about the female need for men:

Women need men to provide safety and security, to be a warm blanket that protects them from a dangerous and hostile world. A woman runs to a man to escape the dangers of the world.

It is easy for men to forget how much more powerful we are than women. We just take our strength for granted. But because they are the weaker vessel women must approach the world in a very different way. Sometimes they express this consciously, but most of the time subconsciously. Women are fearful because they must be fearful, they can’t defend themselves like a man can. How do women compensate for this?

Well, they act as a herd with other women, for one. You ever notice how oftentimes women will all go to the restroom together? As a group? Myself, I see it all the time. What I’ve never seen is men do the same thing. I suspect the reason for this behavior is because women subconsciously know that when you are relieving yourself you are even more vulnerable than normal, and so for protection women will group up, counting on numbers to protect them. Men, who can both relieve themselves more easily and are more capable of defending themselves, experience no such compulsion.

But the most important way that women compensate for their weakness is by associating with men. But not just men in general. Or any man. No, the Man. The Alpha Male. The big, strong man who can defend her, and her children, from harm. The Man who makes her feel Safe. This is where a man’s capacity for violence is important, even essential. Because a man who has a strong capacity for violence is a man who can keep his woman safe. Of course, sometimes this violence is directed at the woman herself, a perfect example of unintended consequences. Yet even those women who suffer at the hands of their man will often go back to him, perhaps driven by the subconscious belief that while may hurt her, he can also protect her from greater harms at the same time.

One of the most important truths that the Red Pill can teach is what it means when a woman says that she feels unloved by her man. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t cherishing her, or treating her romantically, or anything of the sort. No. What a woman really means when she says she feels unloved by her man is that her man does not make her feel safe. A sense of security is essential to women. The need for security drives all sorts of female behavior. Fitness Tests are one example of this. When a woman fitness tests a man, she is trying to determine if he is man enough for her, if he is capable of protecting her and keeping her, and her children, safe. Dalrock relates some of his experience on the matter:

She knew I loved her, but she didn’t feel it the way she wanted to.  It of course was equally frustrating for her as well because she kept telling me something was wrong and I wasn’t making it better.

Dalrock experienced this because he was failing his wife’s fitness tests. She was challenging him, and he wasn’t up to it. As a result their relationship suffered. But see what happens when Dalrock takes the Red Pill and adopts some of what he has learned:

It wasn’t just my actions and words which changed however, my frame changed as well.  Had I tried these same things from my old more beta frame, they might have backfired spectacularly.  I struggle to define it, but my frame was more of a playful cocky/funny one.  This was actually fairly natural for me, but I had made the mistake of listening to the conventional wisdom on how to please my wife.  The results were as expected more attraction from my wife.  As I mentioned this wasn’t ever a real problem before but I could tell a difference in her response to me.  Then something very startling happened;  she thanked me for finally making her feel more loved!  I had given up on that goal for the time being, and yet along with more attraction I had also inadvertently filled that nagging void which she had been feeling for so many years.

Just by changing his frame to be more “Alpha”, Dalrock managed to make his wife feel more loved. Why did this change of frame make such a difference? Why, if we accept “make me feel loved=make me feel safe”, did his attitude change things? The key relates to what women find attractive in men, and why. Under the LAMPS theory of female attraction, women are attracted to men based on a man’s Looks, Athleticism, Money, (Masculine) Power and Status. If the male capacity for violence is linked to the female desire/need for security and those impulses are connected to what a woman finds attractive in a man, then those traits which relate to a man’s capacity for violence should correlate with the LAMPS categories. And they do, specifically to Athleticism and Power. Because Athleticism relates to the physical capacity for violence, and Power to the mental capacity for violence. By adopting the cocky/funny attitude, Dalrock improved his Power value because he demonstrated that he was unafraid of confrontation, and willing to stand up for himself, which is critical if one is to have the mental capacity for violence. Of course this isn’t what Dalrock’s wife was thinking… but this is what her brain’s subconscious was concluding.

Based on this understanding, I think it is safe to conclude that the male capacity for violence is hugely attractive to women. A man who can demonstrate to a woman that he is dangerous, or capable of being dangerous, will be highly attractive.  This is why Ton’s “Gun Game” works. Women want, no need, a man who is capable of protecting them. They may not understand this at a conscious level,  and they may even consciously oppose it, but beneath the surface it drives much of what they say and do. So the lesson for men is this:

If you want to attract the ladies, it helps to be dangerous.

What’s Your Number?

One significant difference between men and women which the Red Pill brings into stark focus is the fact that measuring male and female Sexual Market Values are very different propositions. One reason is that both male and female SMVs are on a different curve. But the principal reason lies in the fact that you can gain a relatively accurate idea of a woman’s SMV after a few seconds of looking at her (assuming she isn’t wearing a Burkha). How do you easily measure a man’s SMV? Appearance is only part of what makes a man attractive to a woman. In fact, the whole package can be summed up in the LAMPS formula: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status. However, the most important set of attributes, which fall under Power, cannot be measured or discerned easily. Power is a highly subjective sub-category of attributes, and thus defies easy efforts to rank on a 1-10 scale. Certainly for men trying to judge this and have that judgment line up the same as a woman’s discernment is unrealistic, at best. This makes it nigh-well impossible to assign a man a SMV value on the 1-10 scale using a static observation.

So this raises the question: how do you evaluate male SMV? I think that the only practical way to do so is to observe the SMV value of the woman who are attracted to a man. It stands to reason that if a man is capable of pulling the attention of female 8s, but not 9’s, then he is a Male 8. Likewise, a man who can pull 10’s is also a male 10. The hypergamistic nature of women means that they are very unlikely to be attracted to men below them in SMV rank. Therefore, you can use a woman’s SMV value as a tool to measure the SMV ranking of men she associates with.

Where this method might break down is with regards to lower tier men. Female hypergamy, especially the toxic hypergamy we see today, might be of such a nature that men below a certain threshold get essentially no female attention at all. Or at least female attention from equals. Novaseeker is a strong proponent of the argument that the lowest tier of men and women are essentially locked out of the SMP/MMP, and always have been. If that is so, then this is hardly a universal means of measuring male SMV.

Given all of this, I am asking my readers for their thoughts on the matter. How do you measure male SMV? Can you realistically measure male SMV? Or is the complexity of female attraction to men simply too much?

Establishing masculine dominance while maintaining premarital virtue- Guest Post at Sunshinemary and the Dragon

I recently wrote a guest post for Sunshineymary to be posted over at her blog. The guest post, which deals with how to maintain attraction and control over a relationship while still following the requirements of Christian Chastity, can be found here.

Some Observations on the Female of the Species-2

Here are a few more thoughts I have had on the various women I have encountered lately-

1) Masculine Haircuts are a No-No

Now don’t get me wrong, some women look good in short hair. But a mohawk? There isn’t a woman alive who can look good in a mohawk. Yet this woman (lady would be inappropriate a descriptor) I saw a couple of days ago was sporting one out in public, apparently oblivious to the fact that on her it was utterly ridiculous and completely unfeminine.  Ladies, there is nothing wrong with a traditional feminine haircut. A simple long ponytail works perfectly fine. Or if you really want to mix it up, go retro. For an example of some great looking hairstyles out of the 40s, try here.

2) Beauty care

I know some women like to spend a lot of money on beauty products. But here is a secret ladies: the single, absolute best beauty care product you could possibly buy is a gym membership that you use regularly. The difference between most of the women I see out on the street versus those I encounter in the gym… it is like night and day. I was chatting with someone about this recently, and we both agreed that careful attention to physical fitness, especially leg tone, could make a huge difference in a woman’s attractiveness. While I was at the gym today I saw a young lady who was in fantastic shape; she might have been only a 6-7 based on facial attractiveness, but her incredibly toned body easily pushed her into the 8+ range.  Sunshinemary’s latest post, Service with a Smile, has a lot of tips in the post itself and in the comments on how women can stay in shape. I recommend all female readers to give it a look.

3) Say Yes to tasteful clothing

Dresses and skirts look feminine and bring the best out in a lady. Driving by a local hot spot last night, I spotted several ladies wearing long dresses that were still highly flattering, but didn’t make the women look like sluts. A striking difference compared to some of the evening wear I see on many women these days. Once again, there is a lot going for the retro look. Mad Men is very popular right now, and I think a large reason for this is the fact that the clothing was so much better then than it is now. If a woman wants to display value in order to draw commitment from a man, dressing in a tasteful, feminine fashion is the way to go. For those looking for some help, I am sure that the lovely ladies over at Traditional Christianity would be glad to be of assistance.

4) Excessive drinking is not feminine

Eating at a restaurant a few days ago, I observed several young women drinking at the bar, and noticed that they had polished off a not insubstantial amount of liquor. It occurred to me that until the last few decades, it was considered decidedly unladylike behavior for a woman to drink to excess. Especially in public. Yet these women did so without shame. This cultural change is not an improvement. I suppose that somewhere along the line a lot of women got the idea that men like women who can hold their own when it comes to drinking. This might be true for PUAs and their ilk, as they no doubt consider such women easy marks for their talents. But when it comes to commitment, we men do not like women who love their drink, much less alcoholics. Most western women are rude, crude and unpleasant enough to be around as is, and alcohol does not make this any better. So ladies, if you are going to drink, do so in moderation, and with class.

5) Attitude is everything

You know how I mentioned rude, crude and unpleasant in the previous paragraph? Women, don’t be like that. Really. Unless you have the body of a supermodel, men won’t want to have anything to do with you if your personality is more corrosive than acid. And even if you do, we will only want to be around you as often as we have to. As Sunshinemay says… Ladies: Don’t be sassy.  Don’t make it so that your every encounter with men seems like a Fitness Test. Some women have taken to the media to ask “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” The answer is simple: as far away from most women as possible. Why? Because most women think that adopting masculine attitudes and behaviors is the way to go. Here’s a tip ladies: it isn’t. A sweet, feminine personality goes a long way. Men won’t lift a finger to help a woman who is a b—h, but will be willing to die for a good, loyal woman who possesses a quiet and gentle spirit. So ditch the attitude.

I’m not sure if I will have enough thoughts over time to keep this series going, but you never know.

Going APE- What Attributes do Women Find Attractive in Men? Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status (LAMPS)

PROLOGUE

This post is an attempt to explain a fundamental and long unanswered question: What it is that women find attractive in men? It is a clarification and expansion on a previous attempt to explain male-to-female attraction, known as The Five Vectors of Attraction. It will contain some sections lifted straight from that first attempt, although much of the content will be new or modified from what came earlier. I intend for this post to serve as a basic introduction to male attractiveness to those who are new to the Red Pill, as well as a consistent link source for those who wish to blog about female attraction to men. I will strive to update it over time as needed.

INTRODUCTION

To begin with, it is important to understand that the attributes and features by which men determine if a woman is attractive are not the same as those which a woman uses to determine if a man is attractive.

The principle feature which men look for in women to determine attractiveness is easy enough to figure out: Beauty. Age factors into Beauty, as Beauty will diminish over time as age increase. Now, ideal 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. Beauty is essentially a purely visual attribute,  indeed well over 95% of that which men use to determine the attractiveness of a woman falls under visual Beauty.  Therefore it is usually quite easy for a man to quickly gauge a woman’s attractiveness on the standard 1-10 scale. The remaining features which determine attractiveness include how the woman smells, what her voice sounds like, and what her body feels like to the touch.

Male attractiveness is much more complicated. While visual features do play a part, and other physical features have their role as well, there are other things which can make a man attractive to women. It is well established throughout history that money is something which women find attractive in men, along with that undefinable characteristic known as charisma, and women have long been known to be drawn to men of high station. When all of this is analyzed in the context of female behavior like hypergamy, it is possible to discern the triggers for male attractiveness to women, and categorize them based on their nature. There are three principal categories under which male attractiveness is analyzed: Appearance, Personality, and Externalities, or APE for short. Under these three categories are five more specific subcategories which contain the sets of attributes which determine male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status, or LAMPS for short.

They are organized in this fashion:

Appearance         |        Personality     |        Externalities

     Looks                   |            Power              |               Money

  Athleticism            |                                      |              Status

APPEARANCE

This category includes those features of a man which are of his outward appearance. It does not include any behaviors or mannerisms, just what the physical senses could determine of the man in a snapshot. Outside of the two main sub-categories, Looks and Athleticism, the other senses would factor in here. This includes the man’s voice, his smells, as well as the feel of his body.

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. Height is included in this sub-category, and is perhaps the single most important aspect of a man’s Looks. As a general rule those aspects of a man’s Appearance which cannot be modified without resorting to surgical procedure fall under Looks; cosmetics allow for temporary attempts to modify Looks.

Athleticism– Here we have the overall physical attributes of a man. His strength, muscle tone, endurance, dexterity and general athletic ability. Weight falls under this sub-category, because it is largely something a man can have a measure of control over. As a general rule, if a man can control an aspect of his Appearance through training, dieting and physical (or mental) effort, it falls under Athleticism.

PERSONALITY

This category includes all of a man’s behaviors and attitudes, his quirks and unique mannerism. It is an entirely internal category, as it manifests itself only by the actions of the man in question.

Power– This subcategory is a short-hand for Masculine Power, or Masculinity. Although in some respects masculinity is power when it comes to attraction and relationships.  As an attribute, Power includes a lot of traits, behaviors and mannerism which are commonly labeled “Alpha” or “Alpha traits” on Game sites. Aspects of a man’s personality such as confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, dominance, a commanding presence, poise and posture would fall under the Power sub-category. It it important to understand that the power one has from any position of authority doesn’t fall under Power; rather that falls under Status. Power is entirely personal to the man; it is based on his own unique characteristics and charisma. As a general rule, Power cannot be measured except by observing the man in action.

EXTERNALITIES

This category includes those features of a man which are not connected to him directly. In essence Externalities includes anything which is outside of the man’s body which might serve to make him attractive to women.

Money– This sub-category includes a measurement of 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. Essentially, it includes all resources which belong to the men.

Status– This sub-category includes the social position of the man 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 Status. Think Big Fish or Small Fish; the bigger the fish, the more attractive a man is. To sum Status up, it is based not on anything inherent to the man, but rather his general position in society relative to all other men (and women).

RELEVANCE

There is no universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other, just as men are attracted to different women in varying degrees. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. As a mental exercise, one can view these as a point system, where a man has a certain value from 1 through 10 in each LAMPS subcategory. Then they are added together some sort of weighted average is applied. Theoretically, as long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. However, based on personal observations, anecdotes and the vast amount of empirical research provided by the PUA community, it is clear that certain attributes/subcategories tend to be more important than others for most women. In general the (not universal) order of importance:

1) Power- Clearly the most important set of attributes, well above the others. Charisma is king.

2) Status- Also extremely important, plays a significant role in interacting with female hypergamy.

3) Athleticism- Of middling importance, perhaps because resources are plentiful, but still something which women like in men.

4) Looks- With the exception of height, this set of attributes provides little bang for your buck; it might get you initial attention but won’t keep it for you.

5) Money- Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to measure values for the LAMPS attributes. Whereas it is relatively easy to discern a woman’s Sexual Market Value, the same cannot be said for men, in large part because most of these attributes are extremely subjective.

CONCLUSION

As far as how to use these terms, APE can serve as a quick way of referencing the different categories of attributes which women use to judge male attractiveness. LAMPS, however, serves as a better reference point because it breaks those attributes into more manageable categories which also allows for them to be more easily arranged in order of importance.  Any blogger who wishes to use this system however they like is free to do so, although I do ask for a link back to this post.

News You Can Use

In response to a comment by Matt King over at Sunshine Mary’s, Rollo Tomassi suggested that those Christian men who believed that their virtue would be attractive to women put this belief to the test:

Locate the single (preferably not a single mother) Christian woman you’ve been so patiently trying to become more intimate with (in as non-lust conflicting a way as possible) and, as deftly and as Game savvy as possible, play up your virtuous nature as a ‘value added’ benefit of your character in selling yourself as an intimate proposition to her.

In other words, use Virtue Game. Make sure you pay attention to the subtle hints of her arousal while you expound upon your noble dedication to your virtuous nature. Erect nipples, dilated pupils and a noticeable increase in her spontaneous efforts at kino will all be IOI’s of your new found secret weapon of attraction.

I will admit to having found this amusing, although I agreed with what Sunshine Mary said about Rollo’s suggested “Virtue Game”:

Nota bene – Men don’t have virtue to please women. They have virtue to please God. If you think virtue will get you laid, it won’t. That isn’t the point of virtue in a man.

I have already written about what women find attractive in men in my LAMPS post, and in fact I am writing an update to that post now. Sadly, virtue has no place when it comes to attracting women. Or does it?

Courtesy of US News and World Reports, here is a article about a study that seems to suggest that Devout Catholics Have Better Sex:

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners.

Some of this makes sense from a Red Pill perspective, especially the part about the number of sexual partners. While the exact mechanics of the female pair bonding ability are still not well understood, they do have obvious effects. The article itself is worth reading in full, especially because it isn’t very long. However, the data is somewhat old, and seems to be contradicted by more recent trends. Especially regarding the frequency of sex among married couples compared to non-married couples, because co-habitation has become more common lately. Which means this next part may not be relevant either:

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Nearly twenty years have passed since Greeley’s work was published, leaving its current applicability questionable. But there are some reasons to believe the various studies are accurate. For one, the Catholic Church opposes birth control, including condoms, and some studies seem to indicate that semen acts as an anti-depressant (more here). It stands to reason that happiness and depression would have strong impacts on the likelihood of sex inside a marriage. Devout Catholics, not using condoms, would therefore be more likely to benefit from this mood-effect and thereby more likely to engage in sex , creating a strong cycle which encourages sexual activity.

In addition, devout Catholics also tend to want, and have, larger families. And in order to have more children, they would need to have sex a lot more often (plus it would by its nature have to be unprotected sex, encouraging the potential anti-depressant factor). This is just speculation, but there might also be ethnic/cultural factors at play as well, with Catholics less likely to come from puritanical traditions which viewed sex with distaste.

So where does all of this lead? Why, it leads to the conclusion that if you want to have the best sex possible, then statistics say that you should be a devout Catholic. Which leads to how to play Virtue Game: as part of the sexual escalation aspect of Gaming a woman, a devout Catholic man could impress any woman with the fact that a marriage with him would be the best route to great sex possible. The pick-up lines practically write themselves:

You think this is great music to get you in the mood? Just you wait till you hear the bells on your wedding day, you won’t know what hit you afterward.

That is a sexy black dress you are wearing… but you know what is even sexier? One in white. Trust me, seeing you in that… I wouldn’t be able to restrain myself from ripping it off you when I got you all alone.

Maybe Virtue Game has a chance, after all?

[I should hope that I don’t have to point out this post is rather tongue-in-cheek.]