Real Attraction

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.

That’s all.

There’s nothing else to it.

Attraction is purely a function of the fact that:

  1. You’re a man.
  2. 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.

3 thoughts on “Real Attraction”

  1. M, really good post and thanks for the link to Mike Haine’s!
    Made me think a lot. In his post is a link to another post of his, about SNL – most of it is gold, too but some of his theses are counterintuitive to me.


    1. Tbh not sure about this any more. I’m starting to think being attractive just “is”, and there’s not much you can do to change it within an interaction.

      The girl either has it for you or she doesn’t, it’s highest at the start, and it just comes from inherently being an attractive man.

      This did clarify the “gamey” type of attraction for me, though.


  2. Ha! I like your other post +1 Belgrade.
    I’ve been sick, too. And we have one more thing in common soon…

    After everything I learnt in Game and esp. from Yohami, I believe thinking ‘being attractive just is’ is a bit of male perspective: women scan and judge us so quickly that for us attraction appears as ‘just is’. She scans us for alpha/ Top Guy traits (in her specific preferred flavor ) in the first seconds or split seconds, reading us, our BL and micro-expressions and then is intrigued or not. So we can influence that most before the open and on the long, improving our inner game and life.
    Then during interaction she will compare to her initial judgement and if we’re not congruent, lose attraction. I firmly believe that usually we do not lead and escalate fast enough when there was attraction in the beginning, her feeling ‘oh he’s not that alpha’. At least that’s what my two current girls told me, they were DTF very early on and one thought ‘why have dinner, can’t fuck right away?’ as she told me afterwards.
    I’m working on the me reading her part, I thought I’m decent at this but after reading Yohami’s analyses, I know I’m not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s