My development was heavily influenced by Mystery Method. Not in terms of game, more so the general lifestyle stuff that they now call “red pill.” I read MM when I was 17 or so, maybe even 16, and it struck a chord somewhere in my subconscious about how things really are. I did recognize it as flawed in the sense it gave a horde of guys who weren’t particularly intelligent the idea that game and attraction is just a bunch of stupid scripted routines coupled with big fluffy hats. Their fault, mostly, but I can see how it’d be easy to take that away.
In short, after exposure to MM, and the subsequent college success with girls (nothing to write home about, quality of the overall pool was abysmal and competition was laughable), I realized that time, freedom and independence were the three things most important to me.
(Independence is a subset of freedom but is important enough for the distinction.)
Time = unlimited time to pursue whatever hobbies and interests spellbind me.
Freedom = location independence and good health to capitalize on it (plus money, obviously, but money for high quality of life, not high expenditure. Basically enough money not to have to ever think about it.)
Independence = no loans, no debt, no mortgage, no big possessions like a huge house or fancy car.
I worked during my early- to mid-twenties to align those things so that the rest of my life was properly set up. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the way I’m living now is exactly how I envision post-game retirement to be. Game, to me, is simply the ultimate sort of challenge, the final confrontation of reality, and the last thing left to master in my life.
So exciting times.
But back to the point of attraction. It never sat well with me that “attraction” was defined as the monkey-dance sort of routines that Mystery popularized. Even now, reading through the available material, I see that view of attraction hasn’t really changed.
The things I see being called “attraction” are simply gambits to get more of a girl’s attention.
Have anyone ever asked a girl what she likes about him, either on a date or after the seduction has been complete, and she answers with “oh that routine you did in the first two minutes you met me.”
No. Come on.
Now I’m not hating on the gambits or spikes or whatever, I just think they’re mischaracterized. Sexual spikes are very different. Not talking about those. Even vibe is different.
I’m talking about all the stuff that falls under the umbrella of “attraction material.” It’s not. It’s “get-the-girl’s-attention material.”
Enter this post.
Beautiful, simple, clean, and finally the missing link in the attraction puzzle for me. Namely:
Women are attracted to you because you have a stronger frame than they do.
There’s nothing else to it.
Attraction is purely a function of the fact that:
- You’re a man.
- You have a stronger frame than the girl
Men have naturally strong frames of reality. It’s what makes us men. Women don’t, and so, they value that.
(Don’t get too excited, the paragraphs after the quote up to here were ripped directly from the post.)
But the bold quote up there is probably the most important thing to remember. In every successful relationship I’ve had in the past, it was the frame that won the girl. Height, body, the physical trappings matter yes, but all of it would fall apart without the frame.
It’s something I’ve subconsciously done before, and probably every man that’s had even a taste of success with women has experienced.
I just love the way the poster highlighted it, emphasized it, and simplified it to get away from the crap that masqueraded as attraction before.
Maybe the community’s already moved onto this definition, who knows. I’m only a few months into exploring the online stuff so I could have easily missed it.
Wanted to get it up for future reference, too.