One of the bigger confusions about Deti’s and Rowena’s points seems to be the distinction between sexual attraction and sexual arousal.
SMV = 8-10 “The Have’s”
Only 8-10’s (men very high in good looks and athletic ability – a part of LAMPS) can elicit the raw visceral sexual attraction that Scott and Thedeti are referring to.
For 8-10’s, the Tingle button is permanently ON. These men are ALWAYS sexually attractive to women. And to practically ALL women. Even though they may not show it, respond to it, or express interest (because that would be a pay off.)
In this case, Rowena and Thedeti AGREE.
SMV = 5-7 “It depends on maybe’s”
There is no sexual attraction but there is no sexual repulsion either. However, sexual attraction or sexual repulsion can be generated if the context changes.
So in this case, Rowena and Thedeti DISAGREE.
For men in the 5-7 category, the question is how to change and/or control the context. The contextual factors of attraction will be covered in the next section.
SMV ≤ 4 “The Have Not’s”
For men below 5, the Tingle button is permanently OFF. This includes the morbidly obese, profoundly ugly, etc. These men are sexually REPULSIVE. This is not the zone of a lack of sexual attraction, it is the zone of sexual REPULSION, meaning, “No way will I ever let this person touch me!” Nothing can change this.
This type of system is comparative to Wheat Waffle’s Chad / Normie / Sub5 I covered in Black Pill analysis as I commented over there.
In general, I find this system to a solid one. Most Sub5 / Have Nots can usually get themselves at least to Normie / Maybe range if they become muscular and fit and generally clean up as opposed to be more grungy and unkempt. There’s not that many truly unfortunate people out there, so for all intents and purposes we’ll skip that for now.
Deti seems to be describing something different than just sexual attraction which generally would be defined as sexual arousal.
This is where I want to focus effort. Here’s the main point: With these men and women’s interactions with them, what is generated in women is not “sexual attraction”. It’s not any kind of “attraction”. The only kind of “attraction” that there is or that matters is SEXUAL attraction.
It’s not arousal or desire. It’s utility and exploitation. It’s that the woman sees an opportunity to use, exploit, and take advantage of a man for whatever it is she wants from him (usually indicia of commitment and access to resources). She’s not attracted to him. She does not really want him. She wants him to commit to her so she has unfettered access to his resources into perpetuity even after she has decided that staying with him is no longer advantageous to her.
I used to believe that the S, A, and M of PSALM generated real sexual attraction. I don’t believe they do now. Of course, looks generates real, actual sexual attraction. I believe P (power) can generate real sexual attraction if it is combined with looks, but not alone and not when combined with anything else.
The only thing other than being 8-10 as Rowena describes it that generates sexual attraction, temporarily, is Game/charisma/whatever it’s called now. (Hey, guys- remember Game?) Game can generate some attraction in some women, for a while.
The point is that the only thing that lasts is being an 8-10 (in her eyes, anyway). That’s what works. That’s Scott/Mychael. That’s SAM/Elspeth (“he was the most beautiful man I had ever laid eyes on” “He has a beautiful visage”). Nothing else lasts. Nothing else works.
My comment as follows with some expounding after that.
I think what you’re getting at here is the difference between attraction and sexual arousal.
Women generally won’t date or marry someone they aren’t at least somewhat attracted to (PSALM + masculinity) unless they are going for the status of married (which there are some). However, attraction does not always lead to sexual arousal.
Expressed dominance is what usually leads to arousal. An already attractive man (e.g. PSALM + masculinity) applies a dominant frame and actions in a sexual situation. For instance, hunky, muscular romance novel lookalike pushes the women up against the wall and kisses her deeply. Then picks her up and throws her on the bed and has his way with her. Conversational dominance/flirting/charisma is another way.
I’d say most 5-7s don’t develop that kind of frame unless they read about it here or PUA forums or whatever. While they may be somewhat or maybe even reasonably attractive to some women (and may even marry said women), they aren’t able to give women tingles that the expressed sexual dominance does.
I think I differ from you a bit here in I think that even average men can attract a woman and then be dominant enough toward her to generate tingles.
The thing is with men sexual attraction and sexual arousal aren’t all to different.
- Sexual attraction for a man is seeing a beautiful or pretty woman, especially in feminine clothing, demeanor, long hair, etc.
- Sexual arousal for a man is seeing a beautiful or pretty woman in less clothes and/or acting sexy, seductive, and enthusiastic about having sex with him. In other words, he finds her attractive and his nether regions start to act on it.
Men’s sexual attraction and sexual arousal are pretty simple, but yet most women won’t do the former latter unless she is attracted to the man. The Madonna/whore complex where a man’s wife is the former and he seeks out other women for the latter, but I don’t think it’s that prevalent. It’s usually based on some weird notion that the wife shouldn’t be there for his sexual arousal and that she’s supposed to be “pure.” Some type of gnosticism probably.
For women this differs from men.
- Sexual attraction for a woman is seeing a man with PSALM + masculinity traits. These traits are expressed in varying degrees and usually having at least an extreme of 1 trait guarantees that at least some women will be interested. For instance, with power such men such as the president of the US or mob boss or any other people who can wield lots of authority (ostensibly with threat of violence) over others is attractive to women. Status/fame you see ugly celebrities with women. Money you see ugly billionaires with women. Athleticism you see ugly professional sports athletes with women. Obviously, all things being equal women want all of the categories maximized, but you can get away with being sub par in some if you’re good to excellent in others.
- Sexual arousal for a woman is seeing a man with said traits act sexually dominant toward her. Generally, a woman with a man with Chad looks will want him to have her babies. This is the most straight forward. The other traits, though, are not necessarily connected. A man must display said traits toward her in a sexual way. For instance, there’s successful business men who are SIMPs with their wives. Anthony Bourdain was basically SIMPing Asia Argento and couldn’t stand to see her with someone else before he committed suicide. Little wonder why she was constantly on again/off again. He was famous, wealthy, and not even bad looking… but his behavior was repulsive toward a relationship. Same with Will and Jada Smith where she constantly wants the open relationship and acts on it. There’s no shortage of celebrities who easily get with women, but always have failed relationships or marriages because they put their woman on a pedestal. Whereas there are men like Leonardo DiCaprio, Paul Walker, and others who seem to know they are the man and know how to act as a man with women. They’re usually the one to dump a woman rather than the reverse.
To go a bit further on women’s sexual arousal it’s what makes her nether regions wet and start to feel tingly. Hence, the common term tingles.
Womens’ pornography — romance novels and romance porn — proves the point as well. 50 shades of gray and so on. The man is attractive with the PSALM+masculinity traits like looks, muscles, and always very powerful or successful… but he has the added component of actually acting on it toward the woman he wants and takes/ravishes the woman. Sometimes even despite her ‘weakhearted’ protests which muddles the water even more for men.
Womens’ turn offs seem to be stronger than men given that their hypergamy ensures that they are more selective. An example of this is if husband could be arguing with his wife and then if his wife wanted to have sex he’d be up for it. However, if a wife was arguing with her husband it’s unlikely or just rare that she will want to have sex with him after it. Thus, overall navigating sexuality tends to be more difficult for men than it is for women. No shortage of women nitpicking their way through men much more than men nitpick women.
Normies / Maybe’s generally are at least somewhat attractive to women to where they can get dates and marriage, but I think largely (unless their wife is a virgin) they tend to have trouble generating sexual arousal. Being dominant in a relationship and also in the bedroom are not traits that are taught. Even if a man is the leader and masculine it seems to be rarer that he would also be sexually dominant as well unless he actually has taken the time to research this or experiment.
In general, Christian men seem to have it worse:
- Misinterpretations of Matthew 5 where Jesus said ‘if you look lustfully a woman you have committed adultery with her in your heart’ still reign supreme. It should be ‘covetous’ as it is a reference to the 10 commandments & same word is translated as covet in Romans. The passage is not talking about expressing sexual desire of a single man toward a single woman (e.g. 1 Cor 7 – if you burn with passion they should marry) which is actually a good thing if it promotes sex in marriage.
- Churches are beta factories pumping out nice guys that don’t lead relationships and by extension are definitely not sexually dominant in the bedroom.
- The Church tying itself to chivalry (Queen-Knight inverted role) instead of Biblical headship. This makes the man/husband a slave to his wife’s whims and feelings.
- Most men think women like romantic sex whereas most women actually like fast/rough and potentially rougher sex. The idea of romance is tied with Christ-Church in a multitude of ways (not just chivalry). For women fast and rough dominant sex with an attractive man is romantic. See: women’s porn examples.
Dominance for Christian men often feels wrong both in leading a relationship and also in the bedroom. It seems that most of the men who never got the memo are the ones who came to Christ later after having lived a life of debauchery and fornication. While this is not a good thing, what is worse is the Church neutering the non-fornicating husbands in their marriages.
Personally, these were two separate things for me to learn as a “Normie / Maybe” range man. Yes, the manosphere helped, but I had to experience and learn from them myself. I think most Christian men don’t know that they should be leading.. or at least actually leading in a Biblical manner. And most definitely don’t know the dominance during sex part. Surprise, surprise, the more dominant I got during sex the more my wife liked it. Now it’s just my natural frame, but it definitely felt unnatural before that.
Now clearly most of what this blog talks about is sexual attraction and not sexual arousal namely because most Christian men need help getting dates first. But discussing sexual arousal definitely needs to be talked about as well, and I can plan some more posts on that.
I think these things are achievable for most men (e.g. most Normies / Maybe’s which most men fall into) excluding Chads, but it’s definitely a process. I think this would probably work best in a discipleship-type environment where older men can explain to younger men and newly married what masculine headship/leadership looks both in a marriage and in the bedroom.
Let me conclude by saying that one does not have to have sexual attraction and sexual arousal maximized to have a successful and sanctified marriage either. A lot of husbands and wives have been happy and holy throughout history without any focus on these things. Much of that has to do with instilling loyalty, commitment to vows, and fleeing outside temptations. But having sexual attraction and sexual arousal does seem to enrich the marriage by making the bond stronger if the descriptions of those men and women who have strong sexual attraction and arousal for each other are any indicator. It also makes it more likely that they will be more willing to do the Biblical roles and responsibilities, but they still have the choice to disobey God which can happen.
Christianity and masculinity 
Sexual arousal for a woman is seeing a man with said traits act sexually dominant toward her.
Simplifying this down to the extreme, this is essentially Game. This is essentially an average, 5-7 guy (from Jack/Rowena’s post at SigmaFrame) running Game.
Or, don’t call it game. Call it charisma, or being dominant, or being sexually forward, or acting in a sexually forward manner. However you term it, it’s a man, acting like a man acts toward a woman, clearly not in a “let’s just be friends” manner.
He’s being at least covertly, barely subtly, sexual. He’s making it clear he’s not there just to invite her to be buddies or to go play tiddly winks. He’s making it clear he’s a man interested in her as a woman and everything that entails.
That’s Game.
And I acknowledged at Jack’s that Game can create sexual attraction (or arousal, whatever you want to call it) at least temporarily. So, yeah, spitting some Game at her will create some arousal, for a while.
— Misinterpretations of Matthew 5 where Jesus said ‘if you look lustfully a woman you have committed adultery with her in your heart’ still reign supreme. It should be ‘covetous’ as it is a reference to the 10 commandments & same word is translated as covet in Romans. The passage is not talking about expressing sexual desire of a single man toward a single woman (e.g. 1 Cor 7 – if you burn with passion they should marry) which is actually a good thing if it promotes sex in marriage.
— Churches are beta factories pumping out nice guys that don’t lead relationships and by extension are definitely not sexually dominant in the bedroom.
— The Church tying itself to chivalry (Queen-Knight inverted role) instead of Biblical headship. This makes the man/husband a slave to his wife’s whims and feelings.
— Most men think women like romantic sex whereas most women actually like fast/rough and potentially rougher sex. The idea of romance is tied with Christ-Church in a multitude of ways (not just chivalry). For women fast and rough dominant sex with an attractive man is romantic. See: women’s porn examples.
Excellent commentary.
I’ve thought this for some time, but have been loathe to say as much.
Many have asserted in and around this part of the internet that it’s impossible to have a proper covenant marriage because people today have no idea of the underlying assumptions etc that define it.
Taking that as at least a partial truth, I contend that the average level of dominance present in society today is so low that when an average man who has been conditioned by modern society to be submissive reads about turning the other cheek, he becomes a doormat for everyone to walk on.
IMO, the biggest beneficiaries of Game are men who are already physically attractive but simply have terrible Game. For them, Game is a game-changer.
Less physically attractive men will have to work harder to self-improve and will see lesser benefits in terms of attracting women. Depending on how attractive or unattractive they are, choosing to learn Game and make themselves more physically attractive(hitting the gym, diet, grooming, etc.) is a matter which involves cost:benefit analysis, as in how much incremental benefit in improving their attractiveness is there as compared to the cost of the time, effort, and expense of it all in time and other resources.
You don’t have to go too far down the attractiveness scale before a man makes the entirely rational decision that he’s better off going fishing.
Thank you sir for articulating my many strands of thoughts
To clarify – there are 4 parts
Part 1 – Sexual attractiveness – this is what makes a woman want to date you – the LAMPS part
Part 2 – Sexual arousal – this is what makes a woman want to go to bed with you – this is power and dominance part which the above post refers to; this is what generates the tingles – so to speak.
For men – these two are intertwined; hence the statement that if she has raw visceral attraction from the get go – she WILL go to bed with you. But for women first part does NOT necessarily mean second part. Just because a woman is attracted to a man does not mean she will go to bed with him. For a woman there is a difference between sparks (first part) and tingles (second part). For men sparks and tingles are same. If he is ATTRACTED he WILL go to bed with her. NOT for a woman
For most men; it ends with just Part 1 and 2 – get these 2 – ready for marriage
But there are 2 more parts – this is where vetting is important especially for a Christian
Part 3 – Wanting to marry this person – this is where one needs to see that in ADDITION to the first 2 parts, one takes into account other factors – this person is going to be your helper and mother to your children. A sexually attractive / aroused woman may not translate into being a godly helper for your mission in life / mother to your children. She may want to have your baby but will she raise the child to be a disciple of Christ. She may submit her body to you but does that mean she will be a suitable helper to your mission. Just because you have first 2 parts does not mean you will have 3.
Fourth part – Staying in the marriage – this will happen only under 2 conditions. First – Societal and legal restrictions – which is being eroded everyday. The other condition – a godly woman who is aware of her duties and responsibilites in marriage (which includes not depriving husband – I Corinthans 7:5) and has a healthy reverance for God which holds her to the marriage VOW – it is till DEATH do you part. This awareness of duties and responsibilites can be done by teaching by older women in the church (Titus 2) which I am really trying to do along with women in my family but it is extremely countercultural because we have built up a society where vows need desires and feelings in order to be kept. Biblical fact – Vows need to be honoured regardless of whether you want to or desire to
Just one more clarifying point – I placed Part 2 as 2 because many times 1 and 2 are confused. But for a Christian – Part 2 – sexual arousal – comes only AFTER marriage. Any attempt at Part 2 – outside of the boundaries of marriage – getting woman to bed with you is fornication / adultery. And biblically both man and woman are not to be part of that
If goal is to get a date – focus on Part 1 – LAMPS
If goal is marriage – vet – if she will adhere to her duties and responsibilities in marriage – including being helper and mother; also her willingness to be taught and obey the Bible; many women are NOT taught the Word and so culture influences them. But when they are taught Word – they do obey. Expose her to the Word and see if she is willing to obey – even if she initially spouts culture. If she is disobedient – she is not going to magically obey after marriage. It is her OBEDIENCE to the WORD and not just obedience to her sexual desire that determines if she is worth marrying not just sexual attraction
AFTER marriage – if goal is sexual arousal – dominance, lovemaking skills, game etc. plays a part. Virginity has a huge influence in ability to become one flesh. Also shows desire to OBEY Word. But essentially – at some point one needs to establish regularity – there is a reason it is called conjugal rights. Rights come with responsibility. Nobody asks a man if he has strong visceral attraction to his job. He is expected to show up for work – regularly. With a good attitude. And get the job done.
For PART 4 – staying in marriage – she needs to be relentlessly sanctified with Word as to her duties and responsibilities of marriage as well as how GOD views vows in the Bible – Numbers 30; Stories of Jephthah, Herod. And find older Titus 2 women to mentor her.
I agree respectfully with thedeti sir – most men feel this is not worth it. But neither is Christian faith. Which is why Christ requires us to “count the cost”. We live in a society where marriage is NOT about obedience to God and faithfulness to marriage VOW and it is ALL about the relationship and not the duties and responsibilities that come with it. And yes! I get the despair from men that it is not about increasing attractiveness but if women will hold up to their end of the bargain
I also agree with thedeti sir – It is women who need to change. This change will only happen with the teaching them of the Word and conviction by the Holy Spirit. To that end, I am trying my best to mentor younger women. We can only do the best we can. Only God can do the rest.
Apologies for all the rambling on a forum that is not my space to be in. Only doing this because I felt I needed to clarify my position as it ended up in a blog post.
You mentioned there are 4 parts.
Each of the parts should be properly vetted before making a decision about marriage. But regarding Part 2, the man is taking a huge risk because he may be a failure in implementing Part 2 after marriage.
Such failure or less than satisfactory results may be mitigated with proper vetting. But I’m at a loss as to how Part 2 should be vetted. How should Part 2 be vetted?
Pingback: Roundup on Attraction and Marital Sanctification | Σ Frame
Pingback: On Choosing the Flesh over Christ | Σ Frame
@ Rowena
Forgot to reply to you.
I’ve covered the vast majority of this already here and in the book I wrote.
I guess we’re coming full circle and everyone needs a refresher.
Pingback: Trust, attraction, and the Biblical female marital roles of helper, submission, and respect Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: A Christian understanding of attraction, and the role it plays in marriage: Dominion is baked into the cake. Part 4 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Rollo Tomassi’s Take on the Meet Cute Phenomenon | Σ Frame