| fast seduction 101 promotion section |
 If you haven’t already visited the
 ASF forum or Player
Guide web board, now would be a good time to do
so… Don’t forget to this site! Fast Seduction 101
now has a 
product review section. |
Tap water will do just fine
3/30/01 4:46:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mario:
I just want to send you a review of the products I know:
Hypno-seduction = CRAP
Holosync (from Centerpointe) = Treasure for life. Just listen the CD's for 1
hour a day, for 9 years. Yes, 9 years! Wouldn't it be very suspicious if you
could get rid of all your mental trash in no time? They are great. Your
enlighten is only 9 years away ( I've been using it for 2.5 years, and
although I have lot of mental crap yet, it's been cleaned)
Attitude Activator (from Rex Steven Sykes) = Great!
Spring Forest Chi-Gong = Wonderful! What does this have to do with
seduction? Well, increase the energy and release the blocks from the body,
and you'll see what happens to your states.
Sedona Method or Releasing technique = WORKS! Too simple? Yes, and works.
Doesn't matter what others (who didn't do it enough) say, it works. It took
6 months to make it work (resistance to the simplicity), but now it started
to kick in.
Hypnotic Awakenings = Need to say anything? It's Major Mark, people! If I
could (if I didn't live in Brazil), I would do all his courses. The only
question about HA is what is the best way to listen, and how many times.
Dynamic Hypnosis = put a person in hypnotic state in 2-3 minutes. Works!
It's like the opposite of traditional hypnosis.
As you can see, everything is about state. I think that's the hard part, at
least for me. I hardly obtain any change, but the simple fact that a pump-up
occurs after listening is enough for me to show it works.
My Comment: This is greatly appreciated -- whether you agree with the
reviews or not, at least we are getting some feedback which will benefit the
good stuff and save us money on the junk.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Tenore:
> Becky:
> How do men feel about full figured women? Do they find them to be
> more appreciative in a relationship and sexy in bed?
Based on my limited experience with the genre, I find quite the opposite.
Most "larger" women are frustrated, angry, and filled with venom against
men, which they will immediately proceed to take out on any man unfortunate
enough to be in the vicinity. So, "no," and "no." Not "appreciative" at
all - more like "twisted." Because "being fat" is more than just a body
shape, it's an entire outlook on life. With each additional pound that our
body gains, something inside each of us says, "wait - that isn't right!"
Most of us eventually reach a point where we say "STOP - current body shape
is not acceptable. Losing weight is now an imperative." (I have been
anywhere from 15-40 lbs overweight for much of my life, currently
in the truly "full-figured" person, that mechanism of self-control has
broken down, even though the self-disgust that the obesity inspires remains
unabated. Indeed, in recent decades the feminist movement has tended to
scapegoat MEN (or "the patriarchy") for the self-loathing that fat women
feel. Usually the "line" is that being fat is perfectly OK, it's just
"patriarchal brainwashing" that tells you it isn't. (Even though the medical
evidence is unambiguous that obesity leads to disease and early death.) Any
woman who goes down THAT path (and millions here have, since the U.S. is
apparently the fattest nation on earth) is going to be one twisted sister.
> My Comment: I think you need to be a little more specific about "full
> figured."
Indeed. "Voluptuous" is highly desirable, "disgustingly fat" is not.
> Becky:
> What if a woman goes to bed with a guy the first nite? Is
> it then over before it begins?
I agree with Clifford, it is not, and some of my better relationships
started exactly like that.
To attempt to give Becky the "male persepctive" on this question, at least
as I see it: one thing to keep in mind is that when a woman offers a man
sex, assuming that he finds her attractive, she has his COMPLETE and
UNDIVIDED attention. While some men may be getting so much sex from
attractive women that they are relatively indifferent to the offer of more,
I can assure you that that is not the case with most men, probably not even
most men on this list. (Be honest, men: even if your current GF or GF's are
wonderful, if a decent babe drops the hint that she wants you in her bed
right now, are you going to yawn and say "that's nice, but I really must go
home and finish doing my laundry"? ) Indeed, if a woman is very keen to have
sex, that suggests to me that her sex drive may well be as strong as mine -
a big plus for any future relationship, as many women are tepid at best,
which bodes very poorly for any lasting relationship (except for the AFC,
who will meekly accept whatever miserable situation is thrown at him).
Suppose a guy is out sarging, and the lady thinks "this guy seems so
exciting, but how can I be sure that he will call me, that I will ever see
him again?" Well, I know a way you can get him to focus ONLY on you, for at
least a period of hours (if not days!). He will be absolutely centered on
pleasuring you, and on the pleasure that he is receiving from you.
Immediately, you will go from somebody who has little or no role in his life
to "somebody who matters." Bingo: an "instant relationship," which may or
may not last (just like any other relationship!)
And what happens afterwards? That depends on the two of you. It depends on
how well your lovemaking went. It depends on how emotionally compatible the
two of you feel. If the experience has been positive, there is every reason
to repeat it. I cannot fathom any "logic" or reason for saying that a
"first-night" stand must remain an "only-night stand." If you do not feel so
enamored with each other by the light of day, assuming that you have both
acted responsibly, no harm has been done. At best, the woman has gained a
new lover, and at worst, a new friend.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Poetdude:
Hey there, boys and girls. This little rant has been prompted by some of
the stuff I've been reading here over the past 3 months which sometimes
strike me as petty, weak and supplicative -- basically, against the Tao of
life. Guys, remember -- the romantic hero, the ultimate seducer, sets a
standard of behavior that we all want to aspire to. He enriches himself
and his surroundings through who he is, and because of that everyone is
inexorably attracted to him -- including women. Mark Cunningham says "you
just have to show up", and the Tao says "the master accomplishes
everything while doing nothing." Like a magnet, he attracts naturally and
effortlessly, because it's who he is, not some act he puts on (thanks,
Ross). You're building a hot-rod from the ground up (hard, but with
long-term results), not just putting some additive in the fuel (easy but
ephemeral). Now, the Tao Te Ching (probably the most influential book in
my life -- check it out), when read carefully, is an excellent model of
seduction. Some day I will comb through it and write more about how
relevant chapters relate to seduction. And yes, I'm usually interested in
how to *do* things, not how *not* to do them. But, in the meantime,
here's some spleen for ya, as well as a short response to Becky's
questions:
1) Rating women: the external appearance of a woman is the map. The
contents of her head is another map (arguably a more useful one). What
you can experience with her is the territory. So, ask yourself: What do I
want? Elicit your own criteria regarding relationships with women.
What's important to me about going out with a '9'? Does the envy I detect
in all the other chumps put 6" on my height? Does her ravishing face make
it easier for me to explode into orgasmic ecstasy? Or am I just not
attracted to anyone less beautiful than that? Using the number rating to
make yourself feel important or to brag to your buddies is high-school.
How she can make you feel is what really matters. The only initial rating
that matters at the outset is the one provided by the MBS -- the male
binary scale. She is either a 0 or a 1. If 0 -- move on. If 1 -- go
whole hog. Using an analog system also has the disadvantage of making you
use 70% of your resources to nab a perceived 7, 80% for an 8 -- you catch
my drift. Chuck it. You either dig or you don't dig. Now go for it.
2) Lying. Under this category goes plagiarizing, misrepresentation, and
outright lying. You wanna have two (or more) girlfriends? Have the
courtesy and decency to inform them of each other's existence, so they can
choose whether or not they want to get STD from each other (vs. you making
the choice for them). If a chick pulls this stuff on you, she's a lying
whoring bitch, but if you do it, you're an alpha male»? Pure,
unadulterated bullshit (and bad for your health, sez the doctor). Lying
is also the sincerest form of supplication. It says to the world and to
your unconscious, "I do not fully accept myself as I am, therefore I need
to misrepresent myself so people will like me." Ouch. Also, taking other
people's poems, stories, etc. and saying you wrote it just plain sucks and
is lying plain and simple. Attribute it -- lotsa people have gotten laid
reciting Byron and Shelley, without having to pretend they were Byron or
Shelley. Besides, Byron and Shelley died young -- I sure as hell wouldn't
want to be them.
3) Stealing girlfriends; humiliating other men. Another application of
the 'do unto others' philosophy. Look, if some schmoe came and
interrupted your date uninvited, ignored you and tried to pick up your
date (not even girlfriend), how would that make you feel? What have you
done to deserve this rudeness? C'mon guys -- no need to poison the well.
If she approaches you, or gives obvious signs that she needs to be saved -
fine. But the person who needs to make himself feel important by
humiliating others is a small man indeed. This also comes from a
scarcity point of view. There are so many available women out there that
frankly it's not worth my time to steal one from a date, boyfriend or
husband (especially when he's around). When I am thirsty, I don't feel
the need to dig a well to prove my manhood. Tap water will do
just fine.
4) Becky asks what a woman has to do to get a man. The old joke says
"show up naked with a six-pack of beer", but here are my thoughts anyway
(and I'm not being the spokesman for all carriers of Y chromosomes either
-- this is me, specifically. Take with boulder-size chunk o' salt). The
most attractive feature for me in a woman is self-possession. A
self-possessed woman is smart enough to know who she is and what she
wants, and strong enough to go after it. She also tends to be funny and
successful -- effects of self-possession, methinks. My last relationship
was with a pretty extraordinary woman: 24, spoke 4 languages, grad
student in economics and math, 5'11", former Bennetton model, absolutely
astounding figure to send me in raptures, totally beautiful, kind, sweet
and funny. So why did we stop seeing each other last month? Because she
had the self-esteem of a gnat -- all in the presence of extraordinary
gifts. Is that attractive? Do I need that kind of energy drain in my
life? No. Do you? Didn't think so. I deserve the best, and so do you,
hallelujah and amen.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mystery:
>What I've been experimenting with recently is looking for the
>woman's need to be needed and to be of service! Even some of the
>hottest women have a need to feel needed, so try asking her for some
>SMALL favor early on. Something that requires her to some way
>contribute her time, focus, effort, etc. Not quite a "hoop" per se,
>but similar and taps into the need to be connected and mother.
That is hoop theory. An example is this: ask her to hold your drink
while you tie your shoe and when done 'forget' to take the drink back
for a bit. Or: ask her to pick something up from the market on her way
to your place (you are assuming the sale as well). Or: get her to get
you a pen from the bartender. Or: if she gives you a hoop (asking for
a drink, for instance) you don't jump through it and instead immediately
give her a hoop (asking her to get YOU one, instead). Girls will give
stupid little hoops alot ... and they aren't all physical. "Don't talk
about that to me." You reply, "Don't listen." That, too, is a hoop. She
says, "Give me your #." You reply, "Give me YOUR #." I'll post more
specific hoop examples as I encounter them.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Alistair (Commenting to Brother Diamond):
Hey, I think it was Helen Keller who said,
"Life is either a magnificent adventure or it is nothing."
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Toecutter:
Seems we agree on the fundamentals. I would like to clarify my thinking on
the states that are desirable though.
> > The superhotties are just girls. The same as
> >7's. There is one big difference; they are used to people
> being intimidated
> >by their beauty. Believe me, their brothers, family, friends
> and BOYFRIENDS
> >were not. Their inner circle are on their level and laugh
> and joke and poke
> >them in the ribs.
>
> I think this is totally true, and here is a deeper truth: they have a
> set of anchors and responses for those who have kissed their asses
> and for those who are in the inner circle. So do the inner circle
> stuff (joking around, taking them unseriously, goofing on them) and
> the associations to you will be "inner circle".
I agree completely that from her perspective this is what happens. I agree
also that in firing those anchors you can effectively put yourself in the
"inner circle" category of men (or at least "potential interest") as opposed
to firing the wrong anchors (though nervousness, statements of submission,
etc.).
> Anytime ANYONE has common experiences and uncommon experiences,
> those anchors tend to be quite separate and discrete and also quite
> rigid. So use them!
>
> >If you
> >want to be part of their inner circle, you can not be
> intimidated by their
> >beauty. More guys are not intimidated by a 7's beauty than a
> 9's. Therefore
> >the 9 has less men to choose from. Guys who do not put them
> on a pedestal
> >are few and far between.
>
> Either arrogant assholes or guys at their level of looks/success.
OK, here is where we diverge a little. Certain people consider ME an
arrogant asshole. They also attribute many things to my level of
looks/success. It is only the guys though! They scowl at me from the corners
of the room. The girls see a confident guy who does not put them on a
pedestal. Treats them as equals or lessers. So whilst obviously more
accessible, rather than just learning a few "tricks" like firing the
anchors that those that are sure of themselves (like me) have left behind
(and I think this is a valuable thing to do), why not build a state where it
is also congruent with who you are? I mean that when you approach a hottie,
you should be in exactly the same mode as when you approach some average
girl. You are not at all intimidated by her. You don't have her on a
pedestal. YOU ARE AT HER LEVEL OF LOOKS/SUCCESS. Anything less constitutes a
limiting belief in my opinion. Because HER LEVEL of blah, blah is really
talking about a power relationship. There is no question that it is perhaps
easier for the super attractive and the highly successful to do this
congruently but there is no reason that you can not do it too. I believe
that it is neither the looks nor the money that causes the attraction, but
rather the texture of the exchange. I am talking about building a state that
makes that texture possible. A state where you truly believe that you are at
her level.
> So
> if you come along totally different AND firing off the "inner circle"
> anchors AND can pass her shield-tests, BINGO..suddenly YOU are unique
> and valuable and rare.
I agree that to come across as different is a desirable thing. But that
requires simply being a little different in whichever area makes you
unique. Not being an AFC that can fire a couple of anchors (sure it IS
different for an AFC, but she'll see through it eventually). Ultimately it
is not congruous. Just believe in yourself, take her off her pedestal, and
let her know that YOU are the higher status individual in this conversation.
If not with words (like negs), then with attitude. I am not talking about
being a jerk, or a prick, or an asshole. Think James Bond, as an example.
Just a man who is comfortable with himself around women.
> > What does a neg (or teasing) do? Demonstrates to
> >her that you do not have her on a pedestal. That you are not
> one of the
> many
> >sub-standard suitors.
> >
> >Therefore, picking up a 9 or 10, requires a statement of
> power (in that you
> >are her equal, and do not in any way worship her) such as a neg, then
> >treating her as if she is a 7. Simple as that.
>
> Great advice: a statement of power! I guess I negged Stacey by
> asking why she wore the same clothes every time I saw her......she
> denied it and said, "I wore this yesterday and again today because I
> felt like it, but I wear different things!"
That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.
>
> >"I want to find out if
> >there is more to this beautiful angel" sucks.
>
> Hold on! HOLD ON! HOLD ON!
>
> It sucks if it is done wrong! I keep telling guys as I have said all
> along, YOU NEVER DELIVER THIS AS IF IT WERE SERIOUS! You do
> it with a smile
> like you KNOW it is a total put on! It is NOT designed to
> compliment her but to appeal to her sense of humor! It is SO fucking
> corny and SO over the top, it is PURPOSELY designed to make her
> laff...it is making fun of all the bullshit over the top compliments
> she has gotten! I'll even roll my eyes when I deliver it as if
> saying, "Can you believe the crap you've gotten UP UNTIL NOW from
> guys?"
>
> 100% true..it DOES SUCK if you deliver it like you mean it!
OK, I understand where you are coming from with this, and I am not saying
that it doesn't work, but I think it is dangerous. You may (even joking)
fire one of those "sub-standard suitor" anchors. It is not an opener I
would ever use, myself. Here is how I think about it: Metaphorically
speaking, let's say a girl is from an ethnic minority. Let's also say that
she
divides the world into 2 groups (just as the hottie does with her 'up to
standard' vs. 'not up to standard' men), and the 2 groups are those that are
racist and those that are not racist. Now, a non racist person coming in and
making a "mock racist" remark, while perhaps demonstrating an understanding
of this person's world (in that it is true, she is used to getting racist
comments), even with the smile / joke it could still fire the anchor. And
many people believe that with every joke, there is a certain element of
underlying worldview. So therefore, I think that this sort of joke is not
very funny, and is not conveying the power relationship that you want to
build. My take on a complementary opener anyway.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Marc.:
> Becky: Hey, Cliff your emails are for guys. What about us women? Unless
> they look like me, they are shit out of luck. LOL
A woman with a sense of humour, that I like. And one having a incredibly
positive outlook on life. But mostly I think women would have to be
courageous enough to ask themselves the same question that the men on this
list do. That question is "What does the person I am attracted to want in a
lover?" And then, whether they like the honest answers they are coming up
with or not, actually act based on the responses they receive.
From what I gather from reading posts here and elsewhere on the net, a lot
of men get mad at (attractive) women for being with "jerks", "assholes" and
"the wrong kind of men" instead of being with them, "a nice guy". Instead of
changing themselves so that they become the kind of man women are attracted
to, they vent their anger forever and ever, and still the world keeps on
turning. You can find a humorous example of this behaviour at
www.chickssuck.com The guy basically knows what girls like, but doesn't want
to change. So much for setting the frame.
A woman can argue with any man on this list, or in a bar, or anywhere else
that he should love a woman because of qualities A, B and C. But this will
probably not change his genetically and culturally-programmed preferences
for whatever he is attracted to. I believe that generally in the Western
culture, men are attracted to slender, well-dressed and well-groomed women
who behave in a feminine manner. I think that this is the common denominator
amongst men's preferences. That is not to say that men can not be attracted
to, or be in love with, women who have many other qualities. But in such
case, the attraction is not as general as in the case of a woman's
appearance. The first man may appreciate her keen intellect, the second her
witty repartees, and the third her bank account.
It seems to me though, Becky, that you are arguing from two directions.
OTOH, you feel sorry for the average-looking women who are denied automatic
massive attention from men because they are not stunning. Mind you that they
can still generate more attention than they are getting by working at it,
just like men have to do anyway. Sometimes you hear comments that women want
to be appreciated for more than their face and bodies. Well, maybe, just
maybe, we men want to be appreciated for more than simply our confidence,
ability to tease and challenge and our sense of humour. I digress... OTOH,
you pity the guys for seeking physical beauty first, and not being able to
look beyond appearances. Do you want all the men to change
and value different qualities about women so that the women can remain as
they are now? If so, I ask you, "Who is responsible for your happiness?"
> What if a woman goes to bed with a guy the first nite?
If she is afraid that her sexuality is the only thing going for her, and
that is in fact the case, well... But if she is an interesting, exciting,
and more positive adjectives kind of person, then being me with sexually
will only make me want to see more and more of her.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Christopher:
> Doc:
> For those interested in FOXHUNTING: I have spent the last 6 hours reading
> the ENTIRE online book of Roger's on www.cybersheet.com (it's about 100 +
> pages pasted into Microsoft Word). The guy who wrote it is basically a
> "chess master" but I liked most of what he had to say. Very thorough yet
> bits most of us probably already know. Some might be valuable to us such
> as the attraction rating scale that was devised known as CUPID - which
seems
> to have been through quite a bit of research. Implementing this would
give
> us a bit more "practicability" over a 1-10 scale!!! It could be slightly
> confusing for "newbies" but could effectively tell us exactly what we are
> trying to show and not state that the HB is a "10" or a "7". The online
> book is under the "library" section and it's free. Give it a read!
I'm beginning to get real tired of this 1-10 scale BS. If she's hot
enough to make you sweat and stammer, then she's just too hot for you.
Or you could get Ross's LA '99 tapes (kickass product) and learn just
what a hottie's world is like. Because once you learn sympathy for her
predicament, her looks will never hold power over you. Also the visual
squash technique demonstrated on that tape is very powerful and
worthwhile. And then, Major Mark's 3 separate inductions are what I
consider to be life changing experiences.
Don't bother with that dipshit loser Ray. Seriously, the man has shown
zero evidence of winnitude. Why bother with his stuff? Free, you say?
Bullshit, you just wasted six hours of walkup time, or six hours doing
SS drills, or six hours sarging time that might have gotten your dick
wet. Six hours has a real cost of I'd say around $300 minimum (I make
$50 an hour, and I figure anyone with even rudimentary seduction skills
could get a gig selling yachts or something like that and do at least
that well for himself; plus there's the bored trophy wives as the bonus
round :).
Instead you spent six hours reinforcing the scarcity frame. Bottom line,
the 1-10 rating scale is about measuring how scarce she is, when the
real question you should be asking yourself is, "How rare, precious,
exceptional and valuable can I be for her?", which makes HER the one
that has to prove her worth to you.
I'm starting to notice a real paradox: on the one hand, pussy is the
worlds biggest commodity, available to any man who takes the time to
learn how to "be the man." There's actually more single women than
single men, and actually married women are there for the taking too.
OTOH, there's no such thing as free pussy; everything has a price, even
if the cost is sarging time plus time spent with a woman you might have
enjoyed even more ... I think that's why the "masters" get more and
more selective. Actually, after all the time I've spent learning SS,
pussy is getting very expensive indeed! When a man is completely
satiated, a lot of things might more important than getting one more
fuck in. But when you're not getting laid, pussy is the color of your
glasses, am I not right?
Oh, and speaking of hotties, I know a chyck so fine that AFC's buy
her _cars_ (OK, yeah, just one car so far, and he was a 23 year old day
trader making mid-six-figures who even supports his mother, but he
ain't seeing her now, I know that). Ironically enough, the girl is
actually very sweet in a lot of ways. It's almost like she can't
keep herself from taking advantage of every opportunity to get money,
presents, etc.
I know another guy that drove his thriving $20,000,000 a year direct
mail business into the ground helping his GF start her own direct
mail business. No shit. He ain't seeing her anymore either since
his company failed. That must have been some fine pussy, tho' I
never met her.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Mario:
To Becky:
As I understood it, you're maybe some kind of beauty. I'm sorry if it
offends you, I don't know, some women get or seem to get offended when you
appreciate them externally. It's funny, because that's the only thing we can
see in the beginning (we're not mind or soul readers, nor Mel Gibson's in
"What women want"...yet). :)
But the point is: why do beauties like to screw us (in the bad sense)? Many
say it's a test. We should be tough and pass the test. I'd totally agree if
women were the same (although it's not their role in "society"). If they
resist tests. But it's very easy, once you get some connection, to break
most women down using their own insecurities (am I only a piece of gorgeous
meat?, etc...)through similar tests. I don't agree or do it, but that's what
I see in my narrow experience. They can't handle the same amount of crap
they like to throw at us. But I know you have to select, I'm not as
chauvinist or insensible as I might be seeming. I'd love if every
interaction could be fun and productive for both parties always. There would
be more players in the game, and the quality would rise for both genders.
But it's not. We have to work our states a lot to approach you. As the
master Ross says "Do not sarge if you're not in the right state", or
something like that. "Work your state!". Well, why do we have to be in the
right state? Why can't sarging be something to PUT us in the right state?
"I'm feeling tired. Maybe going out and talking to a nice women, knowing
this person, seeing that there are wonderful people/women in the world would
energize me" This sounds silly, or AFC, but do you think it would be good?
"Oh, but there's the challenge! The pleasure of turning the tables when she
is not responding well in the beginning!" Yes, maybe, if it was easy,
wouldn't be good. But that's not my point. It's not being easy, but being
productive. Why do we have to explode bitch-shields? My point is: that's the
reason why we behave like Forest Gump. We're expecting to be shot (I know
that's the wrong frame, but is a used frame). We have to be in the right
state to put up with the bullshit transmitter, that meaning, be prepared. If
we're not => Forrest Gump is summoned! And which women do we most expect to
act like that? Beautiful women, because they can! And, as bad as it may
sound, not so beautiful women do not have as much potential to do that.
I'd love to know how do you think about this. Even if you're going to tell
me "You have serious problems! Go to the head doctor". But the fact is, in
some level, the way women deal with guys just gives us less will to go after
them. It's something you have to do in the right state, and in the right
frame. We have to mind-read, to understand something that for us is not
natural (the way you think, which is a bit more evolved than the way we
think, in my opinion) and handle attacks to our confidence. I love to talk
to women, to see their view of the world and life, but most of the time I'm
not willing to put up with barriers or tests. That's women's fault, for
creating this frame (dating/testing frame) and OUR fault for accepting it.
Ross gave the skills to surpass that, thank you. But if it weren't for guys
like him, there would be many, many more Forest Gumps than the enormous
amount that there are today. And not every woman thinks like you. Most of
them have twisted ways, maybe it's our fault too.
About our contribution to the devaluation of relationships with rules like
sleeping in the first date (arrgh! Ugly word): I don't do that. I don't want
to. But that's me. I think that, if you go to bed in the first date, and the
guy disappears, lucky you! Better then than when things are really serious,
when it hurts more. That's a matter of immaturity (if there is such word.
sorry if not, I'm Brazilian). Many think it's fun to just enjoy sex and
leave. It is, if both parties agree. But if the guy makes it seem like it's
serious... well, as I said, that's our contribution to devaluation.
If I were you, thinking from a male viewpoint : ) , I'd go to bed and, if he
leaves and don't call, better for you. You just got rid of an useless
weight.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Superfusion:
>Ross:
>So do the inner circle stuff (joking around, taking them unseriously,
>goofing on them) and the associations to you will be "inner circle".
Now, while I agree with this "inner circle" tactic because it works some of
the time, other times the HB feels and senses that I am being too
presumptuous in assuming the posture of one of her inner circle friends and
it
turns her off (sometimes she will even call me on it) and/or look at me as
if
to say: "Who the hell do you think you are? Don't get all chummy with me."
What do you do in situations like that?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
KrazeeMan (Commenting on the weather on a recent trip to Canada):
The wind was blowing up there like whores through a Vegas
Shriner's convention!
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc:
1. Quick Update on the evil sister phone conversation- called her up today.
Chatted for about TWO hours where for about one hour I was throwing it at
her full speed (hard with a talkative girl)- at least going back and forth
through about eight patterns pretty thoroughly. But conversation at some
point switched to my friend, tried a bit of time distortion on that one but
I guess she just doesn't want my friend (at that point I think I might have
over-done the patterns, she seemed to be all over me). But then apparently
she KNEW for a fact I fancied her friend (the other evil sister) even though
I tried to proclaim innocent....I told her "I like her as much as I like
you" even though I'd say that was a shit line (suggestions welcome). I want
to
turn this into a big one as she'd already invited me to go on a beach with
them both.
A "thunderstorm" pattern I came across (fit in perfectly in the typical
English conversation of "How's the weather?" haha) would've been MUCH more
effective in person - I think she might've thought I was slightly strange
when I said "the thunder is conveying a message to you..." even though I had
a lead-in and all that. I tried to clear that up later due to a tone
falsify but just switched to something else instead. "Peak Experience"
pattern was a winner! (unmodified, you're a god, Ross) It worked perfectly
here as she's a lover of music.
How much will I need to follow-up on subsequent conversations? I don't have
ANY anchors, etc. even though I think I've got it into her pretty
subconsciously and deeply. I think I've put all my eggs in one basket even
though I'd say it was a pretty damn lethal hit. Got a few keywords to map
later but not enough yet (still getting 'em) also would say she's considered
a "dreamer" type. As long as she's not waiting for the Prince himself, I've
got the whip and the horse-ride ready!
She just also sent me a txt msg on my mobile:
"I just CAN'T get enough of u today!!!! I am sitting on my own at a deserted
train station & talking to u makes me feel better... enjoy your
evening...love, x"
Hot girl in deserted train station? WTF, that's my question. What happened
to the men?
Sorry if I missed all the invaluable advice (thanks anyways), I had to call
today (already waited a few) : but will perhaps implement all your great
advice in later calls which will be COMING! (kpssssh)
2. In regard to Becky's questions about looks - a simple answer I'd say is
if one is looking at another person based on looks for attraction, they
shouldn't expect that the person won't do the same in return and get angry
because of this. This is perhaps a central problem... the evil sister that
I was conversing with intelligently differentiated between "attraction",
"connection" and a "re..re" (excuse me, getting a bit of water) relationship
but
basically when it comes to shagging, you're talking about physical
triggers... but for us, this is where SS comes into play! However if you
visit the foxhunting site I mentioned in the last newsletter, judgment
based on looks on the CUPID scale for men I think is 85% while for females
it is closer to 65-70%. This could pose an "attention!" problem when you're
picking up a guy (but dressing up the right way can be very powerful- what
askmen.com would call the "beautiful women") but once you get by that I
think the seduction bit won't be as "out of luck" as one might think...
3.
>I think that is a good explanation why so many of these chicks are
>so angry. Their sense of entitlement either bores them (because they
>DO get what they want and that pisses them off...they are bored and
>want a challenge) or they get the occasional challenge and don't know
>how to handle it...they get confused! Poor widdle pussies!
I wish I could spot the ones who ARE confused, Ross. 5 pussy stars for
someone who can say how! I think many of them live in their little world
(and hence provide you with a great feedback mechanism on her atlas!)
Perhaps one can present a challenge subconsciously without actually giving
them one- simply indirectly inferring that you can't be/have unless they
try...TONIGHT? Speed seduction» is great, and I think you can use it to work
for this - however, I think the MORE time you have, the better. Patience
and time gives better results in ANY thing and you also VALUE the outcome,
which is pretty important in life, I think (e.g. difference between hard
earned money and easy money). Recently I've found pacing to be SUCH an
important thing it's something that I focus on most of the time.
>I think the difficulty is in your mind. How is a hand-squeeze tough?
>Just take her hand and squeeze it!
I have done this with a girl, and every time I get her hand, she'd give me a
funny look (nothing ridiculous, but perhaps my mind's telling me "shit, she
caught ya!"). I recently switched to doing "elbow touch" instead, and
occasional knee tap anchors (wait till she goes to see her GP for a knee
jerk reflex exam!) much more convenient and easier but what have others
found on hand squeeze? My one experience put me off but perhaps I just need
to do it again. Thanks.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Adam:
This is really bothering me I keep getting "stood up" by the hotties.
I meet them.
I feel like we establish good rapport.
I set up a get together via a challenge.
They call one hour before the date and cancel with a lame-ass excuse.
Is there some technique or mechanism that you (or the guys on the list) use
to keep them from flaking?
Sometimes I feel like asking for their credit card number and a $100
deposit against them wasting my time.
I know that the typical answer will be: "You didn't install enough
fascination."
But that doesn't give me a lot to work with. You do what you do, with the
time permitting. Any thoughts?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
| cliff’s list advertisment section |
| Cliff’s Comment: For those of you who are
just reading about this for the first time, I decided a couple of emails ago to add links
to these emails. The idea would be to get enough money in to hire someone to take
over the administrative work (and also to buy things which would improve this list, such
as proper mailing list software) for this list. If you were going to buy the product
anyway, just use the link that appears below and you are helping to keep this list going
at no extra cost to anyone. NON SEDUCTION-RELATED:
RECOMMENDED:
NOT REVIEWED YET:
|
| cliff’s free plugs section |
Cliff’s Comment: The following are all
recommended but clicking on the links and buying from them doesn’t send any money back
here (it is also recommended that the sponsors of these sites consider setting this up —
from the little experience I have had since I started the commercial section a couple of
weeks ago, I think you are missing a lot of business by not doing this):
|
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE:
This is an archive of a free e-mail list relating to seduction,
maintained by "Clifford". Your comments are requested, encouraged, and
greatly appreciated (note that comments from different people are separated by
IIIIIIII’s). If you know anyone who would like to be added to the list, or if you
would like to be removed from the list, send an e-mail asking to be added or removed to cli***f@cl***.com[ ? ]
and it will be done. If you would like to be added to the free joke list, just
ask. For those of you unfamiliar with the references to Speed Seduction»Â®, Clifford
highly recommends your visiting http://www.seduction.com/. For those interested in seeing
the previous e-mails that were sent out ("the archives"), they are available on
request to Clifford or, preferably, can be browsed and searched at the archive at http://www.fastseduction.com/cliff/.
By your accessing this archive, you understand that the information contained in within is an expression of opinions, and they should be used for personal entertainment purposes only. You are responsible for your own behavior, and none of anything you read herein is to be considered legal or personal advice. You also understand and agree that any products you may order as a result of your reading about them in this archive are produced and sold independently from us and that any complaints, disputes or other issues which you may have with the sponsors of these products are to be dealt with directly with said sponsors and we are not responsible in any way whatsoever for any issues which you may have with them. If you are not in agreement with any of this, please leave his site now.
DISCLAIMERS:
This newsletter and the newsletter archive in general is reproduced here
with Clifford’s permission. Visual enhancements and search features have been added
by the fastseduction.com webmaster to facilitate the reading and researching of the
content. The raw text as it appears here is exactly as it appeared in the original
e-mail newsletter. Products, services, or external web sites mentioned or linked to
in this archive does not denote endorsement of those items. The contents reprinted
here are the opinion of the original writer(s) and are not necessarily the opinion of, nor
endorsed by, the owner(s) or operator(s) of fastseduction.com. The archive
enhancements are generated automatically and there may be occasions where the visual cues
don’t correlate exactly with the textual context; most of the time, though, the
enhancements are pretty accurate. The archive is updated as regularly as possible,
whenever new newsletters are sent out.
