Attraction - Thursday, April 30, 2009 13:32 - 9 Comments

Re: Love Letter from a Billionaire

OK, this is in response to the comments and a couple emails I’ve gotten regarding the earlier post today: Love Letter from a Billionaire. Everyone’s responded with more or less the similar point: “She’s only with him for his money, this letter is chodey to the max.” Damnit, I feel like I’ve failed as a teacher. Let me try to explain some points better:

1) The laws of passive/active attraction. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this blog in the last two months: here, here, and here. The cliff’s notes? Basically if a woman perceives you to ALREADY have more value than her, than you have to DLV yourself, compliment her and act “chodey” to get her. I just explained this in my calibration post and even provided examples! For anyone who thinks this guy is a “chode,” please go back and read all of those articles.

With that said, this guy is a BILLIONAIRE, well-connected, good-looking for his age (59), educated and probably smart as hell. His passive attraction is through the goddamn roof. Also, this woman most likely met him through a social circle and was probably already attracted to him. For this guy to do ANYTHING but write a sweet, emotional letter professing his feelings for her would be a mis-step.

2) For those of you who have listened to my audio course (downloadable from the front page), I make the point that attraction = value. Basically, we’re all attracted to what we find value in — this is true for men and women. For instance, if we value petty sex, we’ll be attracted to care-free party girls who are really hot. If we value emotional connection and a relationship, we’ll be more attracted to girls with character and personality. Aside from his billion dollars and his baseball team, this guy is demonstrating that he’s romantic, passionate and courageous (as she even points out). How many 30-year-old single women out there are looking for a rich man who’s romantic, passionate and successful? Uhh… practically all of them.

3) I tried to emphasize the point that at no point did he “give up his power” as Tyler Durden would say. This is a HUGE point for guys to understand about emotional connection, because most guys who get good at this automatically assume that anything that makes you emotionally vulnerable = chodey and needy. Not true. Pussies use their emotional vulnerability to because they’re putting the woman on a pedestal. This guy isn’t. He even says, “you don’t need to respond, I just wanted to let you know.” From an inner game perspective, he’s not being needy in the slightest, what he’s conveying is complete genuine interest — which, as we know, is one of the biggest turn-ons in a woman.

4) We need to remove the words “Chode” and “AFC” from our vocabulary. If there’s one point I’ve been constantly hammering home the last few months, it’s that “chodey” and “AFC” behavior works better than any PUA material if it’s used in the right situation and for the right reasons. There’s a reason 95% of the population uses it. I was recorded in-field by DJFuji last fall. I made out with a girl and pulled her and he commented the next day, “Dude, I don’t even know what you did. You barely said anything after you opened her. You like complimented her, bought her a drink and then took her home and fucked her.” It’s because if you have the right frame and aren’t needy, a lot of this “chodey” shit works like a charm. You just have to know when to use it.

Hopefully this makes more sense. I threw this up because this is an example contrary to typical PUA pick ups in a lot of ways. It’s good because it gets us thinking “outside the box.” And not only that, but if we’re going to have any theories about attraction and pick up, they need to be consistent in all situations, not just club skanks and college girls.