Building Attraction . . . a gaping hole in the Mystery Method???

[Dante1a]

Looks count. But women respond to how you make them feel, instead of just how you look.

 

[wayword]

When I was a teen once I didn't get my hair cut for a while. I looked like a greesy old trail bum. No women hit on me. I got my hair styled by a good stylist and the next week two of my friends older sisters came onto me hard core. The only thing that changed was my appearance.

Well, when you look at what separates PUA gurus from AFC scrubs...the most obvious difference off the bat is hair & clothes. They are both generally always VERY TRENDY.

Because those alone can create (or extinguish) initial attraction. And if you don't have attraction to start off with...you ain't getting to C or S...

Problem is a lot of guys downplay this "outer game," and work so hard on verbal game for opening or C...when they've ignored the VERY FIRST STEP.

Really, the M3 model should be amended to include a P section for prepatory passive Game. Most of which is personal styling. Because this is really what precedes and lays the groundwork for A1...

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Looks count. But women respond to how you make them feel, instead of just how you look.

Too bad more guys don't realize this simple truth.

 

[ketostix]

Looks count. But women respond to how you make them feel, instead of just how you look.

Except a woman isn't going to or allow you to make her feel attraction if she doesn't like your appearance. Everything is framed subjectively for a woman.

 

[ketostix]

Yes, this is correct, to a degree. But as I mentioned, I can see a girl who is physically attractive to me, but after speaking with her or being with her for a while, I may no longer be interested. Vice versa for a not so cute girl, that I end up wanting to sleep with.

The point I'm making here is that I believe attraction is almost purely energetic, more than being high value, or any of the other PUA explanations. If you looked at the energy between two people scientifically, say with equiptment that could show you what happens energetically when two people come near eachother, we would be able to see the leve of energetic attraction.

Here's another analogy for High Value. Health is a key facet to hv. Our bodies also have an intellegence that alerts us to the health of a possible mate, esp. for breeding purposes. WOmen will feel this about you if your vital life force is strong. It will naturally attract.

I agree with this that health and youth is attractive and being energetic. But I don't believe this gets communicated through some 6th sense or through energy waves or whatever. I believe it predominantley is communicated visually through visual cues (facial expressions, eyes, body language and gestures etc.). This is what I'm talking about appearance matters and not just physical looks.

As far as attraction between two people being a measurable energy level it really just a chemical brain response that could be viewed on say an MRI if the person fully understood what a given brain activity means. Anyway I'm saying it's mostly through the visual pathway.

 

[Dongfu]

I agree with this that health and youth is attractive and being energetic. But I don't believe this gets communicated through some 6th sense or through energy waves or whatever. I believe it predominantley is communicated visually through visual cues (facial expressions, eyes, body language and gestures etc.). This is what I'm talking about appearance matters and not just physical looks.

As far as attraction between two people being a measurable energy level it really just a chemical brain response that could be viewed on say an MRI if the person fully understood what a given brain activity means. Anyway I'm saying it's mostly through the visual pathway.

probably, depending on how much acid and shrooms you've taken

 

[zerocelcius]

Okay, but according to who, Mystery? The only person who could honestly know how a woman thinks is a woman. An the concensus of a lot of men is "dont belive anything a woman tells you."

No not mystery... lol

I wouldn't say it was a fact and base it on an opinion. It is Biology.

http://psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-19930301-000030.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060213_attraction_rules.html

 

[potato]

I agree with the OP. With every girl with whom I’ve had a relationship (there has been a few dozen) the attraction was there from the beginning. No game required.

Funny how David DeAngelo says that attraction is not a choice but then goes onto to teach that one can get a woman to be attracted to oneself by essentially talking her into it. I’m amazed more people don’t see this contradiction.

Men are visual and almost non selective by nature.
Women are emotional and extremely selective by nature.

Maybe I’ve just been dropped here from space aliens but I have always been highly selective when it comes to women. Selectivity has more to do with having options rather than nature.

Back in the cave days men hit girls over the head, dragged them to the cave, and had their way.

Woman than had to survive with a child and no man. In evolution they learned that by attracting the guys that were more loyal they no longer had to survive without a man.

Can you prove this? By all indications humans have always lived in groups. Humans are and always have been social creatures. Men didn’t bang women and then run away. They stayed within the group. Early humans survived by cooperation.

Actually this can be proven in terms of evolution. Without boring everyone to death, I'll make it simple. Our main purpose in life is to reproduce and survive so our species can continue to thrive. As a male, we are designed to reproduce with as many females as we can so we can increase the percentage of survival in our offspring. If we didn't, we risk the possiblity of extinction by not producing enough offspring that can survive. If every male did this (not reproducing to the max) during the dawn of our species, we would be extinct.

Another pop wisdom of the day?

Considering that one man can impregnate many women, and the fact that populations tend to be relatively equal between the sexes, it makes no sense that men evolved with the need to spread his seed far and wide. The one man, one woman model works just fine.

Yea my friends that are girls always talk about guys they find attractive....but they never hook with them. Once I jokingly said to one of them, "well go talk to him then" when she mentioned a guy she thought was sexy. her response was, "I said I think he's good looking, not that I'd sleep with him".

Actually the way this works is the same as with men. Just because a man finds a woman attractive doesn’t mean that he will try to have sex with her. Mostly because he fears that she will reject him, because she will. Same goes for women. An average woman has little chance of getting to have sex with a very attractive man, not matter how much he turns her on. She knows she’d be rejected so makes no effort.




In these type of discussions it always seems as if the only options for a man is as an AFC (average frustrated chump) or PUA (pick up artist). The thing is that most guys who do have relationships with women fall into neither category. There are men who are decent looking men with character. These are the men that women are most attracted to, the ones that they want to marry and have their kids.

Remember this, most women do not like pick up artists.

All of this psychological/biology/evolution bullcrap coming from PUA gurus is just that bullcrap. It is designed to give them an air of respectability, to sell their product. One of the biggest complaints of newbie wannabe PUA’s is their inability to pick-up quality women. They miss the point that PUA is designed to pick up women at clubs/bars who are drinking and looking to get picked up, not be all that picky. The PUA’s are all just having sex with the same small group of bar wh0res. It is a disservice to men and women to teach the PUA crap as if it is somehow the truth about how women everywhere are.

I’ve come to believe that most women want a man who is upstanding – honest, caring, courageous, confident, useful to society – someone she’d feel proud to stand behind, proud to introduce to her friends and to her mother. The best way to get women to fall in love with you is to strive to be a better man.

 

[ketostix]

I agree with the OP. With every girl with whom I’ve had a relationship (there has been a few dozen) the attraction was there from the beginning. No game required.

I agree the attraction was there from the beginning but you still need "game" to capitalize on her attraction. You just had natural game.

Funny how David DeAngelo says that attraction is not a choice but then goes onto to teach that one can get a woman to be attracted to oneself by essentially talking her into it. I’m amazed more people don’t see this contradiction.

I agree and I always seen the contradiction.

Maybe I’ve just been dropped here from space aliens but I have always been highly selective when it comes to women. Selectivity has more to do with having options rather than nature.

Partially agree, but I don't think anyone can legitimately say that men aren't less selective sexually than women. A man having options or not is partially due to this nature of the sexes..

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocelcius
Back in the cave days men hit girls over the head, dragged them to the cave, and had their way.

Woman than had to survive with a child and no man. In evolution they learned that by attracting the guys that were more loyal they no longer had to survive without a man.

Can you prove this? By all indications humans have always lived in groups. Humans are and always have been social creatures. Men didn’t bang women and then run away. They stayed within the group. Early humans survived by cooperation.

I agree. Besides women typically pursue and stay with men who aren't obviously loyal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandow
Actually this can be proven in terms of evolution. Without boring everyone to death, I'll make it simple. Our main purpose in life is to reproduce and survive so our species can continue to thrive. As a male, we are designed to reproduce with as many females as we can so we can increase the percentage of survival in our offspring. If we didn't, we risk the possiblity of extinction by not producing enough offspring that can survive. If every male did this (not reproducing to the max) during the dawn of our species, we would be extinct.

Another pop wisdom of the day?

Considering that one man can impregnate many women, and the fact that populations tend to be relatively equal between the sexes, it makes no sense that men evolved with the need to spread his seed far and wide. The one man, one woman model works just fine.

I agree the one man, one woman model works fine and is what essentially happens predominately. but I still think most people, male and female, have a drive for genetic variety. And men have more of a drive for variety evidenced by their ability to impregnate more partners by nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L777
Yea my friends that are girls always talk about guys they find attractive....but they never hook with them. Once I jokingly said to one of them, "well go talk to him then" when she mentioned a guy she thought was sexy. her response was, "I said I think he's good looking, not that I'd sleep with him".

Actually the way this works is the same as with men. Just because a man finds a woman attractive doesn’t mean that he will try to have sex with her. Mostly because he fears that she will reject him, because she will. Same goes for women. An average woman has little chance of getting to have sex with a very attractive man, not matter how much he turns her on. She knows she’d be rejected so makes no effort.

I think there's a lot of turth to this, but consistent with my view that men are less selective sexually , men will and do have sex with women who aren't their equal. Women know this. And consistent with women being more selective sexually, they will take up the opportunity. What is stopping them is they believe they could never have a relationship with that man. Women while willing to have sex without intending a relationship, still seem to want to have sex with a man where there's a possibility of a relationship. Call it female pride or whatever.

In these type of discussions it always seems as if the only options for a man is as an AFC (average frustrated chump) or PUA (pick up artist). The thing is that most guys who do have relationships with women fall into neither category. There are men who are decent looking men with character. These are the men that women are most attracted to, the ones that they want to marry and have their kids.

Remember this, most women do not like pick up artists.

All of this psychological/biology/evolution bullcrap coming from PUA gurus is just that bullcrap. It is designed to give them an air of respectability, to sell their product. One of the biggest complaints of newbie wannabe PUA’s is their inability to pick-up quality women. They miss the point that PUA is designed to pick up women at clubs/bars who are drinking and looking to get picked up, not be all that picky. The PUA’s are all just having sex with the same small group of bar wh0res. It is a disservice to men and women to teach the PUA crap as if it is somehow the truth about how women everywhere are.

I agree with this to a large extent. However, the "community" is also made up of a lot of people who do have insight into women and don't consider themselves "PUA" and freely share and gain information.

I’ve come to believe that most women want a man who is upstanding – honest, caring, courageous, confident, useful to society – someone she’d feel proud to stand behind, proud to introduce to her friends and to her mother. The best way to get women to fall in love with you is to strive to be a better man.

I'd like to agree with this, but I think you're giving women too much credit. Many times the "best" man doesn't win. A lot of the time the guy who wins may not be a loser or a bad person, but he typically is an idiot for lack of a better term. But one that is confident even in his own idiocy and charasmatic. And also women do play a lot of games even when they're attracted and interested in a guy. Someone that is successful with women is typically confident and naturally responds to women in an effective manner. Whether he learned this from experience over time and through the luck of hi life circumstances or however, he's what you call a natural. The point is what people are trying to do here, I think is to emulate and acquire the traits and responses of a natural.

 

[zerocelcius]

I was talking about attraction only. NOT the process that follows.

I posted links to explain it better than I could ever do it.

 

[L777]

womannese translation: "I think he's good looking and I WOULD sleep with him."

I rest my case.

I'm solidly with ricorico. I'm not saying you have to be a totally hot guy in girls' opinion, but guys can theorize all they want but visual attraction is the main thing and it happens fast for women too. It's not the only aspect of attraction but some level of it is almost a necessity before you'll ever be able to get your game through the front door.

Womannese? What are you babbling about? These are good friends that say what they really feel....not 'womannese'. If you think a woman's main attraction is visual (as in, yes or no based on looks), then you're a newb. For one, 'looks' are far, far more subjective for women, and for two, 99% of women have other requirements. When I was a newb I thought it was all about hoa alpha you were and how good looking you were....but go into the real world and some girls like intelligence, some like musicians, some like emo kids etc etc.

 

[Dongfu]

These last few post are starting to get somewhere. Great to see a healthy debate between mature posters. Not bad Potato.

 

[Mad Manic]

Funny how David DeAngelo says that attraction is not a choice but then goes onto to teach that one can get a woman to be attracted to oneself by essentially talking her into it. I’m amazed more people don’t see this contradiction.

It's not a contradiction. All he's saying is that you can't choose or successfully fight against the attraction mechanism, if it's theremthen you feel it and that's that. So by having great game, you can get the women attracted to you in spite of her not being attracted from the start and at that point she has no choice about it; she's attracted and can't revert back to her 'not attracted state' at the start.

 

[ricorico]

Womannese? What are you babbling about? These are good friends that say what they really feel....not 'womannese'. If you think a woman's main attraction is visual (as in, yes or no based on looks), then you're a newb. For one, 'looks' are far, far more subjective for women, and for two, 99% of women have other requirements. When I was a newb I thought it was all about hoa alpha you were and how good looking you were....but go into the real world and some girls like intelligence, some like musicians, some like emo kids etc etc.

Looks do count initially. Is it a coincidence that most of the girls on my block are hot for the same guy? Sure there is more to attraction then looks. Perhaps if they got to know him they would think him an AZz. But until now, they are giving him social value simply by competing with each other for his attention.

But how exactly does what you say differ "womenese" from men's attitudes. Guys are also attracted to hot girls. But I know many who like other requirements. Some guys like brainy women they can talk to, some guys like a woman with a bit of attitude,spunk! Others guys like women who are into sports or hiking or whatever. I know guys who like to date "models' even if she's not so hot(it's clout just like women like musicians). In order to have a relationship most men and women require more than just looks. That has nothing to do with womenese. But mutual physical attraction has to be there for any relationship whether you are male or female. Otherwise,why are you involved with a person you are not totally hot for physically? You need to be physically fulfilled by uyour partner. Otherwise you are just having sex for the sake of pleasing them.

That's why women will be willing to downgrade on looks and then think she's entitled to cheat with the hot guy. Not only has it been proven by scientist who say women with below average mates are more prone to cheating. Tom Leykis had this very subject brought up a couple of years back. Women will marry a guy they are not hot about because the guy who really rocked her world is not available to her because he's got many choices. There were actually women calling who confirmed what he said.

Chris Rock also had a monolog like that. He says after a few years your women sits across you at the breakfast table and wonders how she ever got stuck with this ugly Mfokker! The reason she married you is because her first choice did'nt want her.

I have a really good friend who'se involved with a guy from another state. He just spent a week with her and all was great. But she confirms after talking for awhile his body is short and his arms and legs are a bit too. She then further admits(with some digging on my part) he is not physically attractive to her, but they get along well. She also admits she is prone to dating men who are not attractive because she is more comfortable with that. When I ask her if she is not aware of how cute she is she says no! She has very LSE and hence aims for not what she finds attractive, but waht she finds comfortable. I told her if she does not change he attitude, she will ultimately end up in a marriage with a guy who she is comfortable with. But will end up hating sex as that is a normal part of a marriage . Marry and date people you are VERY attracted to physically.

Ever see how women act once they are in a room with a male stripper? It's disgusting! they act like people who have never been fed. Most of the hungriest are the ones who never touched hard abs or solid bodies. They are almost too hungry for contact with men who would otherwise not be available to them sexually.they can't seem to get enough. It's weird.

 

[tsmith2334]

Let's look at it the simplest way. When you meet a girl, does she have to build attraction before you are interested in her? Not me.

Based on her appearence, overall vibe, and the sound of her voice, the way she moves her eyes, how she introduces herself, what she says, how she moves . . .

all of these things I experience INSTANTLY, not after 10 minutes of her running game on me.

I see alot of validity to what you're saying and I HOPE it's true.

Personally though, when I go on a date, say I take a girl out to dinner, I feel like I'm on the show Blind Date.

What I mean is, every little action prompts something, and the fate of date number two, a kiss-close, sex, whatever isn't determined until the final minutes.

In other words, I could ask for a date, she'd say yes (IOI), compliment my appearence or clothing the minute she sees me (IOI), and gaze into my eyes
for long periods of time (IOI) within in the first ten minutes. All solid indicators of attraction.Then, if I forget about eye contact, mumble, and come across as kind of boring, all the attraction I've "earned" is lost. (Maybe I'm paranoid or being too hard on myself, but I feel like I always have to be perfect)

In other words, I worry instant attraction can only get you so far and attraction is something determined far beyond even the first twenty minutes. Like I said, hopefully I'm wrong, and I just might be, you probably have more experience and more wisdom than I do.

Let me know your opinion!

 

[Dongfu]

In other words, I worry instant attraction can only get you so far and attraction is something determined far beyond even the first twenty minutes. Like I said, hopefully I'm wrong, and I just might be, you probably have more experience and more wisdom than I do.

Let me know your opinion!

Yes, you are correct. Attraction proceeds throughout the entire relationship, and can end at any given time. My point is that I feel that a woman will generally decide if she has any intention of ever sleeping with you as soon as you meet. Whether or not she acts on it will depend on what you do.

 

[ketostix]

It's not a contradiction. All he's saying is that you can't choose or successfully fight against the attraction mechanism, if it's theremthen you feel it and that's that. So by having great game, you can get the women attracted to you in spite of her not being attracted from the start and at that point she has no choice about it; she's attracted and can't revert back to her 'not attracted state' at the start.

Well if you "created" attraction with words and you stop being the witty MF she very well could revert backto her not attracted state.

But what I'm saying is, I don't disagree that you can amplify(or destroy) attraction with your words and attitude. What I'm saying is the actual creation of attraction, the one that isn't a choice, is mostly visual and appearance. It happens fast and isn't created with word choice. You can't C+F attraction into creation. Girls aren't salivating and following a guy around like in rico's example because, "Wow girls, he's so ****y and funny!"

C+F can, and every other game tactic can, fail more than it succeeds even backfire. But this visual attraction won't fail and is basically universal.

This good looking guy doesn't really need game he just neeeds to be outgoing, friendly and just interesting in general and confident. The girls are gaming him. He could just say "let's do this or that" and he'll get compliance.

 

[Charm]

Attraction and Comfort are two sides of the same coin.

Example:
If a woman is extremely attracted to you by your looks, style, personality and charm, she will be more open to allowing her walls and barriers down to test out how comfortable she is with you.

Take the example of a hot woman sitting next to you on an airplane. Keep in mind this is a complete stranger on an airplane ride. Initially, she sits down and the seat dividers are in between you. You start up a conversation, she looks over, smiles a few times, plays with her hair while you're talking and you see the IOI's that show she's attracted to you. You keep talking and of course are initiating kino. Next thing you offer to watch a movie together on a Digiplayer or an Ipod. She agrees and you share an ear-bud from a headphone. Next you lift up the seat divider and you both get a little more comfortable together, body's touching.

Your attraction made it possible for her to be comfortable with you lifting the divider and sitting closer. Had you lifted the divider as soon as she sat down, even if you were good looking, it would have appeared awkward. Now it's part of your comfort-building (trust building) and she gets closer and maybe even leans over a bit.

 

[wayword]

Looks do count initially. Is it a coincidence that most of the girls on my block are hot for the same guy? Sure there is more to attraction then looks. Perhaps if they got to know him they would think him an AZz. But until now, they are giving him social value simply by competing with each other for his attention.

Looks will get you through A.

You'll need verbal Game to get through C, though.

 

[ricorico]

Looks will get you through A.

You'll need verbal Game to get through C, though.

Exactly!!!! Looks are a great door opener for men and women. BUT you are an ass male or female OR have the personality of a wet blanket, your looks will not get you anything in the long run. Just a shallow person willing to overlook personality flaws for arm candy!

We have all met a girl who we were initially attracted to because she's so Hotttttt!!!,But after talking to her for a few minutes the attraction level fell dramatically because she was empty headed and having a conversation with her is just too much work!. No different than a guy who'se good looking but a shell!

Looks AND verbal game though are a powerful combination which can't be beat! Most people if they had choices and high self esteem will want a partner with it all. Great personality and mad sexual attraction.