Category Archives: Sunshine Mary

A Failure To Communicate

One of the various subjects this blog is devoted to is analyzing and addressing the differences in communication styles and methods between men and women. No easy task, given both the difficulty of the subject matter as well as social conditions. However, it is a critical one as failures to understand how men and women communicate are a major cause of family troubles in the present age- especially among Christians.

For a recent example of a failure to communicate, see this post and its follow-up by Sunshine Mary. They stem from a post by Dalrock, Unhinged. All three posts showcase a serious ignorance of how how men and women communicate. I encourage my readers to look at all three posts, as this post won’t make sense without that- especially Sunshine’s most recent post. In my post I want to focus in particular on that second one, “Is the problem a lack of listening or a lack of submitting?”

The Good Pastor that Sunshine discusses is a man concerned about his wife’s well-being. Perfect? Of course not. No man is. Yet it is clear that he tried to, in his mind, find out what was wrong. To discover what was bothering his wife. Unfortunately, his ignorance of his wife’s nature got in the way of his honorable efforts. Instead of making things better, his efforts to find out what was troubling his wife only made matters worse.

No doubt Pastor Wangerin believed that he was listening to his wife, or at least, willing to listen. Sadly, he wasn’t. Oh, he was listening to what words she said. But he utterly failed to listen to the real message that she was trying to convey. A message conveyed without words. This is a common error that men make- we pay attention to the verbal message and miss all of the other cues that women are sending our way. In many instances, especially when the matter is important, and emotions are involved, the verbal message is less important than non-verbal communication. Sometimes it doesn’t matter at all.

Wangerin’s wife was sending a barrage of messages his way, but he kept on missing them. His wife, of course, couldn’t help but notice that he missed them. To her they were plain as day.  If he was listening to her then he would, of course, understand what she was trying to tell him. So she interpreted this (mostly at an unconscious level) to mean he wasn’t listening! 

Remember, women expect men to Just. Get. It. A real man would just understand what is going on. He wouldn’t need it explained to him. Pastor Wangerin’s continued inquiries only served to remind his wife, again and again, that he didn’t get it. This conveyed to her, at an unconscious level, that he wasn’t a real man. That is the message he conveyed to his wife.

His wife later told him that she felt that he wasn’t prioritizing her enough, among other things. Said other way, she didn’t feel like he was present enough in her life. Fascinatingly enough, this was probably a true charge on her part. She likely did miss his masculine presence in her life. Unfortunately, his inability to understand his wife meant that he acted in such a way as to heighten this absence in her life.

If there is a lesson to be learned here (and I think there is more than one), it is that husbands need to listen to all that their wife says. That means what she says verbally, and what she says non-verbally. Pay more attention to your wife’s behavior and mannerisms so you can pick up those subtle cues. Is this a lot of work? Sure is. But it is part of the duty of headship.

Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.

(1 Peter 3:7)

At the same time, wives need to understand that men do not communicate as they do. They need to keep this in mind, and to alter their own communication style so they can sync up with their husbands. Don’t simply assume that they will “get you.” This means less non-verbal communication, and more straightforward explanation to one’s husband of what is wrong. Both of you will benefit from clear communication between you.

My soul takes pleasure in three things,
    and they are beautiful in the sight of the Lord and of men;
agreement between brothers, friendship between neighbors,
    and a wife and a husband who live in harmony.

(Sirach 25:1)


Filed under Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Sunshine Mary, Women

Quote of the Day- November 8th, 2013

The quote of the day comes courtesy of Zippy Catholic:

Every man should go deep within himself and get in touch with his feminine side. Then he should strangle the bitch.

His quote may be found in this thread at Sunshine Mary’s blog.

1 Comment

Filed under Femininity, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sunshine Mary

A Couple of Quick Questions

I am writing a shorter post today, using this opportunity to poll my readers for their thoughts on certain subjects.

“No Rings for Sluts”

My last post, which contained a story worth reading, even if it might not be true, got me thinking about the subject of marriage, the carousel and female premarital sex in general. In the comments of that post a discussion took place about the effects of premarital sex upon that woman’s chances of marrying (and its impact on whom she can marry). There seemed to be a general consensus that the subject of the post, a certain “Eva”, would suffer some consequences but they would probably be tolerable for her. Much of the reason for the minimal consequences would be the fact that for most men, she wouldn’t stand out as a bad marriage prospect. Since very few men have taken the “Red Pill” (I need to take the time think of a new metaphor), most guys will simply miss or underestimate the red flags that popped up all over the place in Eva’s story.

Which got me thinking… what if most men did understand the dangers of a woman like Eva, or a woman who was on the carousel? What would it mean? In some circles there is already a sentiment of “No Rings for Sluts!”, but this is still a minority position. Suppose that this changed, and that the overwhelming majority of men were aware of the risks. Further suppose that because of this, that same overwhelming majority of men refuse to marry a woman who has engaged in premarital sex. Would this change the way that women behave? Would there be a massive shift in female behavior, so that many or most women no longer engage in that kind of conduct? A few bloggers around these parts have advanced such theories before, Sunshine Mary being one of them.

This leads to the first poll, which asks readers to state what they believe the impact on female behavior will be if men will not marry women who engage in premarital sex:

My answer would be that a small minority of women would not engage in premarital sex. It would have a positive effect, but not a very large one. More women, perhaps a larger minority, would initially follow this path but once a tempting opportunity arises they will quickly give it up. After which they will simply stay on the carousel. Of course, those who disagree are free to mention why in the comments.

Unplugging the Carousel

Given that men simply refusing to marry women who engage in premarital sex may not enough to end the carousel as we know it, this invites the question:  What will actually pull the plug on the carousel? Here are a few ideas (one being a repeat from above, for those who disagree with me):

1) The return of social stigmatization of premarital sex (aka, “slut shaming”).

2) Changing our legal structure so that unmarried women (especially those with kids) don’t receive the kind of benefits, protections and opportunity boosts that bring them close to the level of married women.

3) Men, en masse, decide that they will not longer marry women who have engaged in premarital sex (“no rings for sluts”).

So, which of these options would have the greatest effect in terms of bringing the carousel to an end (at least, for most women)?

That ties up this post. Thanks to everyone who participates and comments.


Filed under Alpha Widow, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sunshine Mary, Women

Dodged a Bullet There

Boy am I glad that I stayed away from Sunshine Mary’s blog today. I haven’t seen this much friendly fire since I took a class of kindergarteners to a paintball park…

P.S. I am going to try and crank out Part 2 of the Market Failure series today.


Filed under Sunshine Mary

Holy Insurrection Batman!

Joseph of Jackson, a former manosphere commentator who left the ‘sphere a few months back, has returned over at Sunshinemary’s site. In her latest post, Sunshinemary published an e-mail that he sent to her explaining some of what he has been up to. A sample:

Women talk, a LOT. It is their tool of choice for most things. And here we are, as men, using the primary tool of women to try and enact change and we wonder why we can’t get any real traction going.

[Some men] are genuinely surprised that red pill women behave this way. They believed they had found some trustworthy women and the pedestalization phase began all over again. You can see that although they understand alpha traits, and in some cases use them, they are just as prone as any man to falling back into beta thinking. The only true defense we men have against this is a culture that will not tolerate it. If it is considered the respectable thing to do to keep women quiet and in submission then that is what men will do. We don’t have that culture online.

Apparently JoJ built up a group of men that recently joined a church and began reforming the church. I am publishing in full a comment he left at SSM’s site explaining what he did, because it is an amazing story. My own series on reforming the church is put on hold for the time being, because Joseph has already exceeded it with his actions.

Okay, here goes. This actually all started at a different church. I was thrown out of my first one for teaching what I taught. I started in a small group that I had been a part of for a little over a year. I established myself as a leader in the group and slowly (dear god, so slowly) started introducing red pill concepts during our weekly bible study. I made a point to hang out with the guys during the week. We spent time together. I actively flirted with girls in front of them to let them see what was possible. Everything changed one day when I was flirting with our waitress. I asked her for her number. She said she didn’t want to. As she walked away, one of the guys (the actual leader of the small group) was picking at me by saying I had lost my edge. I told him that she actually meant “no, not right now, it’s too public”. He didn’t believe me, so we did what most guys do. We made a bet. If I got her number by the end of dinner, I got to teach about the Bible and girls at our next meeting. If I lost, I had to humiliate myself publicly by standing up in front of everyone and anouncing that all women hate me and run out like I was crying (don’t ask, one of our guys is on bi-polar medication and he thought this would be the best thing to watch ever). I had her number within 2 more passes.

That’s where it all started.

I spent several months introducing them to the concept of game and told them about the class I went to. My small group leader got onto me for placing women before God. I informed him that this helped me actually put God first as women were no longer that important. He was hooked. We were already hanging out every week so while hanging out, I started to get them to approach women. Not to have sex, but just to get past the fear. This continued for several more months. I taught them how to work your way around a room starting with the least attractive girl and working your way up. I taught them how to read social situations and how to take control of a set. I showed them how to get women to actually start chasing them and how to play the part of the bad boy without actually being a bad boy. I taught them how to wing for one another. Soon, we were doing this several nights a week. I made one condition. I would teach them, but we had to have bible study afterwards. So we did. We went from one bible study a week to 4 or 5. No one wanted to miss meeting women, so they all came for bible study. About our 4th month, something interesting happened that I had been waiting on. It happened to me and I knew it was only a matter of time before it worked for them too. They started to come out of the haze. Women weren’t some mystery anymore. We actually felt sorry for the women as we knew they couldn’t control themselves.

That’s when the events occurred when I first started posting at Mary’s blog. I wasn’t prepared for the backlash that would come. These guys were getting much more spiritually mature and the church didn’t care. I was asked to leave. They left with me. My girlfriend left with me. We started doing church at my place on Sunday’s and we started working for a local shelter during the week. Cooking food, doing laundry, cleaning floors. We also spent more time getting to know people. These guys had moved past wanting to pick up women. They had been there and done that. No kino, No sex, No dirty talk, and they were still past it. They now understood not just women, but social dynamics in a group and with individuals. We saw many people get saved because the Holy Spirit used our newfound gifts.

Then one day, another guy in the group had an idea. Let’s go and see if we can turn a church around. I was opposed to the idea at first. Finally, they sold me on it. Individually, we are good with women. As a group, we dominate any social scene we go to. It’s like 10 male lions walk into a female pack of lions. We don’t fight each other, we don’t compete with each other. We are in charge. Place Roosh in my church, one of the best PUA’s around and watch him get tooled by our group. He’s not dealing with one or two guys. He’s dealing with an entire tribe. So we decided as a group to use our skills to reclaim a church that was no longer acting on God’s Word.

The church we chose was the worst of the worst in our area. They actively let women preachers speak. They had a ceremony one week that celebrated the uniting of the nations in which they presented a staff of holly wood (witchcraft) to an indian shaman on stage. They have a women’s counsel that is the equal counterpart to the deacon’s counsel (which is their version of elders). We targeted it tactically.

Our goal was simple, dominate the social scene. Most Churchians are there for the social aspect of church and if you control that, then you control public opinion. We established ourselves in 4 small groups. We would actively team up against male members of the church who were leaders that taught false doctrines. Two man teams were assigned to this, one would be good with scripture and the other would be good at AMOGing. In a few weeks, the deacons were quelled and the women were very happy to see us taking on leadership roles. The entire atmosphere changed. The script that Satan had used to claim this church for himself had been used against him. That’s a high level overview, but it’s a good idea of what’s going on.

What Joseph of Jackson has done is to play the part of an insurgent, and start the process of taking a church over from within. I can’t wait to hear what will happen in the future, because if he is successful it provides an opportunity for many Protestants to begin reforming local churches. Being a Catholic, I can’t adopt his plan for myself, as the organization of that church and the Catholic hierarchy are quite different. But there are still plenty of lessons to be learned here. I have managed to draw a few of them out already (in no particular order):

1) Dominate the social scene- As JoJ noted, most churches today serve as social centers first, and communities of believers second. If you can control the networking behind the social structure of the church, you can influence a lot of what goes on at the church. This can be done behind the scenes, away from any scriptural or doctrinal battles that might be happening Therefore efforts to gain influence here might not elicit the same kind of resistance.

2) Group tactics work- JoJ’s comparison to a pride of male lions attacking in concert has a certain appeal to it. It is so unexpected, so outside the natural order, opponents won’t be able to easily respond.

3) Know your strengths and organize accordingly- Some men have natural charisma, others are great at memorizing and reciting scripture. By utilizing each person’s strengths in the right context, you can overcome any foe.

4) Alpha men control the Church women- Women are drawn to attractive men just as strongly as men are drawn to attractive women, and you can use that, even in church. If you have a group of powerful, confident, charismatic men, those men will be attractive to a lot of women, and be able to exert considerable influence over the same women. Women will do a lot to maintain the good graces of an Alpha male. If Alpha males start demanding that the women of the church act like they should, the women will follow.

It is possible that this will all blow up in JoJ’s face, just like before. But I rather doubt it. Given his success thus far, I suspect that Joseph has succeeded in his insurgency. Even if he and his cohort were to be kicked out, I have no doubt they would be able to take a large chunk of that church with them. Which means that the next takeover should be even easier. It sounds like even if he is successful, he will be working on reforming all of the churches in his locality. The insurgency has only just begun.

In the spirit of the title of this post, I leave all of you with this:


Filed under Christianity, Churchianity, Feminism, Red Pill, Sunshine Mary, The Church

When Push Comes to Shove

It is my belief that “Feminism” is nothing more than a massive, society-wide fitness test that has spiraled out of control and now threatens to bring civilization down around us.

What is a Fitness Test? It is when a woman pushes against a man to try and see if he will respond in a dominant or commanding manner. It involves a woman making unreasonable or unrealistic demands of a man and expecting that he will cave to her whims. She is testing his masculinity, trying to determine just how much Masculine Power he really has. What makes a Fitness Test truly maddening is that the woman unconsciously wants to fail. She wants the man to push back, or to swat aside her demand. She wants him to succeed, even though she doesn’t realize it. While it may bother her at first, when a man passes the test by refusing to cave into her demands, she will ultimately be happier as a result.

Unfortunately, this behavior has jumped from being something individual women do to something which is practiced on a massive scale. Women push and push and push. They push for more power over men everywhere.

They push for more power over men in universities. Sadly, all too many men are more than willingly to cave in and fail the tests.

They push for more power over men in science fiction and fantasy.

They push for more power by preventing men from enjoying all-male spaces or activities.

They push for more power inside the Church.


Well, now people (men and women alike) are starting to push back. This threatens the imperative, naturally. And so the push becomes a shove. Expect to see more visceral responses in the future against anyone who tries to expose what is going on. Women will be loathe to give up their precious feminism, and White Knights will be eager as always to step in and fight on their behalf. Things are going to get ugly.


Filed under Feminism, Fitness Test, LAMPS, Red Pill, Sunshine Mary

Every Woman’s Fantasy

Dominant sex is every woman’s fantasy. Rape is every woman’s nightmare.


The above is a quote from Hannah over at Sunshinemary’s site in her latest post, which covers Ravishment fantasies. I highly recommend reading both the post itself and all the comments, as they are some of the best yet at SSM’s site.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alpha, Red Pill, Sunshine Mary

Another Ray of Sunshine

Apparently SunshineMary has decided to rejoin the blogging world. Her new site can be found here. Fortunately, she saved the archives from her old site and they are available there. Her opening post covers the topic of the balance of power between the sexes, and the role that Game plays in it.

1 Comment

Filed under Sunshine Mary

Moral Agency in Women- Revisted

[Note: This is an older work of mine. The ideas that I explored here have largely been replaced or rejected since I first wrote it.]

Below is re-creation from Google cache of a post that SSM put up a number of weeks back concerning moral agency and women. I am attaching my additional thoughts to the end, as before.


An interesting conversation about whether or not women can control their reactions and responses to dominant men took place on a previous thread.

Commenter Donalgraeme wrote:

I suspect that the truth is that around a powerful, dominant masculine presence the part of a woman’s brain which is responsible for logic and reason simply shuts down. Pure biological instinct takes over, leaving the three main drives of a woman: 1) Sex with alpha males, 2) protection, and 3) provision. At this point she starts seeking to fulfill impulse #1, sex with an alpha male. No rational thought is involved. Just pure lust.

To women, the notion that a relationship might result is probably the most logical conclusion that they can reach as to their actions after the fact. The truth is that they don’t know, and don’t understand why they did what they did. So the Hamster kicks in, and draws out this solution. In other cases it resolves itself as “he took advantage of me.”

Personally, I am starting to wonder if a man with a dominant alpha frame is irresistible to women. That is, given the opportunity, she would have sex with him no matter the cost or consequences. Or what some have called “trading 5 minutes of alpha for a lifetime of beta.” Worst of all, the woman has no control over this. She cannot help herself, and really doesn’t have full agency in this kind of situation.

Deti discussed a youth pastor whose wife had an affair with an alpha male and concluded:

Looking back on it now, it makes perfect sense. Alpha dominant man targets mousy pastor’s wife for easy sex. He pushes her hard, finds her buttons, pushes some more. Milquetoast hub can’t compare; this dude has found buttons she didn’t even know existed. She can’t help herself and gives in; finds out she LOVES it. Reason and logic slowly return; the awful truth dawns on her; she offers groveling apology; all is well.

Here’s the problem — can a woman stand up under that kind of pressure, especially if she knows the sex will be off the charts; the man making the moves is more attractive than H by all objective measures; there is low risk of detection; there really aren’t any consequences to speak of; and the dude is pushing all her buttons juuuuuust right? donal, I don’t think she could. I think she’d just have to make sure she didn’t go into the situation in the first place.

And Donalgraeme replied: 

“I’m really starting to think the woman who uses this strategy is simply fulfilling the female Prime Directive:

Secure alpha seed from the best man possible, get pregnant and have babies. ”

That’s pretty much it. And the part that frightens me is this: women don’t really have any choice in the matter if they come across the right man at the right time.

Makes me understand why so many cultures hid their young women…

…Many societies hid away their young women, only allowing them out of the family home when they became married. Feminists decry this as oppression and tyranny, but the truth is that women are vulnerable to the powers of an Alpha.

Jesus taught his disciples to remove those things which bring them to temptation. Unfortunately for women, they themselves are the tempting object. Hence, to avoid sexual sins they must avoid situations where they could be subject to the irresistible power of a dominant masculine frame. In our modern world, that is nigh-well impossible.

So, whose fault is it when women sleep around if it isn’t their own fault?  Women experience a sharp increase in sex drive during the days surrounding ovulation, provided they are not using hormone birth control.  If she’s married, no problem; her husband gets to be the beneficiary of her increased interest in sexual activity.  If she isn’t married and there is a relatively dominant male in the vicinity, just how much ability and responsibility does she have to regulate her own behavior?

There are a large number of verses about sexual immorality in the Bible but let us just consider two:

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Obviously we can see that, since it is God’s will, it must be possible to abstain from sexual immorality and that when tempted, God will provide the way of escape.  But I wonder…were these verses meant to cover the current situation of females spending years and years as free agents?  In Bible times, a girl married in her teens, going straight from her father’s home to her husband’s.  There were no opportunities to encounter alpha males on spring break in a sunny locale while drinking tequila (or for the Christian girl, to encounter native alphas while on a “missions” trip).  Is a twenty-year-old woman who is ovulating and has a drink or two in her really able to exercise moral agency in that situation?

And if she is not, then what moral responsibility does she have?

Given the increased risk of divorce a sexually promiscuous woman has, it is a serious question for both Christian and non-Christian women and their future husbands alike.


Additional thoughts plus some comments:

One poster, James127, made this interesting argument:

“Neither natural selection, nor God, would have made women incapable of choice.”

After having given it some thought, I think the he is wrong when it comes to natural selection. I can see a reason why nature would want women to eventually buckle. From an evolutionary biology perspective, reproduction is essential to the survival of the species. However, for humans (and many other animals), reproduction can be a dangerous event for a female. It involves considerable risk, and exposes a woman to a lot of potential harm. From a selfish point of view, a woman might be well served to avoid having children, in order to avoid that danger. If women had a weakness, as it were, to strong dominant men that made them incapable of resisting in the right circumstances, this serves two purposes: the first is to ensure that the woman carries on with the act that brings about reproduction, and the second is to ensure that only a truly masculine man can be the biological father.  Not a rock solid answer, I’ll admit. Might be worth some further thought down the line.

Here are some of the comments I left in the post:

I have been working on this theory for a while now. The essence of the theory is this: the female brain might work in such a way that if a woman were to find herself in a position where she was under the influence of a man with a dominant, masculine frame, the rational part of her mind stops working properly. She can’t think straight. The only things running through her head are base instincts, with desire for the man being the most paramount. If the woman is isolated, away from friends and family or other sources of moral authority who might be able to constrain her behavior, then she might not be able to say “No” to the man if he presses her. She will eventually yield to him.
The important thing is that she might still be a “good woman”, or even a “good Christian woman.” She might believe that fornication is a sin, and that pre-marital sex is wrong, and that she should save herself for her husband. She might be wearing a promise ring, or whatever talisman supposedly will protect her virtue. But it doesn’t matter. Against such a man, without an external moral source, she cannot prevail.

Most importantly, he doesn’t have to force her. Just use the powerful lure of his dominant masculine frame.

I am starting to wonder if the ancients knew of this, or suspected this. Suspected that all women, or even most women, no matter how virtuous, would be incapable of resisting that kind of temptation. Hence the isolated life of most women in many cultures.
What is relevant to this is the attitude of the Churchians. When they hear of a supposedly good Christian woman who has been having pre-marital sex, they instinctively blame the man. After all, she is a “Good Christian Girl” (“GCG”) and no GCG would have sex with someone not her husband… willingly. Therefore, some man MUST have taken advantage of her. This is especially the case where they know the GCG, and knows she is in fact a GCG. Since she wouldn’t commit a sin, logic to the Churchians dictates that it must be the fault of the evil man who took advantage of her. They never stop to consider that there might a circumstance where a GCG might have sex, and the man doesn’t take advantage of her, because it would require them to consider a terrible possibility: That no amount of virtue can protect a young woman from that Dominant Alpha Male (“DMA”) if he can use all of his charms against her without interruption.

This is a terrible thing for them to consider because it means that the only way for a GCG to stay virtuous is to stay away from any DMAs. Given that such men can be found nearly everywhere, and nothing can be done by society to stop this, it means that the GCGs would have to be the ones to avoid DMAs. To accomplish this they would have to necessarily restrict where they go, when they go there, and with whom they go. In short, it requires them to give up the freedom which Feminism has taught them they can fully enjoy. A GCG can no longer act like a man if she wants to maintain her virtue. And given the feminization of most Churches, this is of course unacceptable. Hence, blame the males, the only acceptable response to this situation.

Deti linked to the following post at Dalrock’s which is related:

Once again, I am not saying that the woman has no self-control at all. What I am saying is that there might be a point where she can lose her self-control. She is still responsible for her actions up to that point. If she placed herself in a position where sin was likely, then she is responsible for that sin.

What I am challenging in a way is the notion that you can just send a “Good Christian Girl” (“GCG”) out into the world and expect her to resist all temptation. In one respect that is not entirely dissimilar to the arguments by the Churchians in that the GCG will be taken advantage of by a man. However, that cannot truly be the case, because that GCG makes the choice of ignoring the perils of sin and temptation.

I think that Matthew 5:29 applies here. Women need to avoid the potential for temptation, just as men must. If that means that a woman must avoid certain activities and places that are not so treacherous to a man, then so be it. Life isn’t fair.

More later if I find it.


Filed under Moral Agency, Sunshine Mary

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:






(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.


Filed under LAMPS, Sunshine Mary