It has everything to do with skill, thats the entire point, because those skills can be learned and are transferrable to other men. Why would we use the "natural" as a reference point if it just meant a physically attractive or rich guy? Do you have any frame of reference for this?
Let's be clear: To my mind, a natural is defined as "a man whom women are naturally attracted to". I'm not saying he has to physically attractive or rich. No, I don't have a frame of reference for it, I have just always assumed that's what it meant. It's never even occurred to me that it might be otherwise. Do you have a frame of reference for your definition (and what exactly is your definition, to be clear?)?
From what I understand, the story goes like this: In the early days of the PUA Community, guys set out to mimic the behaviors of men who had high SMV. Because these guys naturally attracted women, they had an abundance mentality. Because they were so so relaxed and confident from having positive experiences with women, they acted in a certain way, and busted on them like they did their male friends. Needless to say, they had no reason to be needy or desperate. The early PUA guys copied these behaviors.
I don't see a natural as a guy who sets out to use a set of tactics and manipulations in order to convince a girl to sleep with him. Girls like him naturally and he knows it, he doesn't need to use tips or tricks.
