We tried to understand individual differences in two super-categories of cues to vulnerability. In a qualitative, act-nomination study (N = 79), we found several underpowered patterns in that more physical cues of vulnerability were listed than psychological ones, no sex difference were observed for number of psychological vulnerabilities, but men listed more physical vulnerabilities than women, however; these effects are descriptive only. We then surveyed participants (N = 262) on how much a curated list of cues from Study 1 made men and women vulnerable. A composite of the Dark Tetrad traits (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, sadism, and Machiavellianism) that we called “antagonism” was associated with seeing targets as more vulnerable whereas those who were empathetic perceived targets as less vulnerable. Physical vulnerability was associated with higher ratings of male targets' vulnerability. For psychological vulnerability, antagonism was associated with lowered perceptions of vulnerability of female targets. Women rated others—regardless of their sex—as more vulnerable than men did, but this effect was strongest for physical cues. And last, women rated other women as more vulnerable—regardless of cue type—than other men, but men rated both sexes as equally vulnerable. Our results are discussed within an evolutionary framework.