mASF post by "Marque One"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, July 7, 2003On 7/23/03 4:39:00 PM, toecutter wrote:
>What do you mean? "Get a hard
>on, and speak to her about
>what ever banalities you like
>... she will pick up on it" is
>not a simplistic method? Spare
>me! You can use big words all
>you like, the method is
>simplistic.
With respect, toecutter, this is ample demonstration that you don't actually
understand the theory. The underlying truth of all seduction theories, GWM
included, is to get the woman to a state where she is ready to engage you. SS
and other methods use verbal methods, GWM uses a non-verbal method.
It is no more or less plausible than the idea that running NLP patterns on a
woman can have the same effect. When it comes to the use of NLP on the self to
improve state, results can take a long time. This has been proven time after
time - NLP only works on those who are open or susceptible to it.
The truth with both GWM, SS and all other seduction techniques is that there
has to be some form of initial attraction there if there is any hope for the
seduction to be successful (by whatever terms you define that word).
>What are you talking about? A
>seller and a buyer are in
>completely different states.
>They are playing roles. Think
>about when you are in a used
>car showroom looking at a used
>car. THe buyer is being smooth
>and accomodating, the seller
>is being sceptical and
>throwing out objections. There
>is no common state, and the
>seller does not enter the
>buyers state. If that was the
>case, the only sales advice
>you would ever need is "go
>into a ravid, red-hot buying
>state where you will buy
>anything, then pick up the
>telephone and speak to your
>potential customers about the
>weather." Start thinking, will
>you.
With respect, that's shite. A common state is achieved between buyer and seller
when the buyer has agreed to purchase from the seller. Seduction, as with
sales, is getting the "buyer" from point a (where they are now) to point b
(where you want them to be).
With both, there are a number of processes that can be undergone for the seller
to achieve his goal. Some take a short time, some take a long time, depending
on how valuable the buyer perceives the object to be, and what the buyer is
prepared to do to get it.
This comes from someone with 13 years in selling, and someone who has been a
sales director for the last 5 years. I do know what I am talking about with
regards to selling, and I am by far the first person to compare the processes
involved in selling and seduction.
>>Seduction/persuasion/sales is impossible
>>without a shared state between the
>>actors/interlocutors.
>
>What a mouthful, and load of
>horse shit.
Intelligent response.
>Substantiate this. His method
>says "Get horney, ask her
>about where she comes from,
>and she will be throwing
>herself at you."
This is the way that gunwitch uses the GWM. Everyone else who uses the GWM will
use their own variance on it, as does everyone with SS and all the other
theories. GWM, as it is currently written, is to be considered the foundation.
>What do you mean? All
>concentrate on kino. All
>concentrate on body language.
>Gunwitch has nothing to offer
>that works in a game other
>than fools mate. What am I
>supposed to say to all these
>fabricated "facts"?
SS uses NLP as its primary weapon. NLP is LINGUISTIC - it uses words. These
patterns are designed to send the woman into a dreamy, trance-like state of
sexual suggestibility. Let's not pretend for a second that kino and body
language are as heavily emphasised in SS as they are in GWM.
If you feel comfortable using SS, you use it. No-one wants to stop you. It's
not for me personally - it's too gimmicky. I've met one mASFer who is excellent
at it - it works for him.
>This sounds like a sales
>speil. THere is no content in
>that to discuss.
To suggest that I am trying to "sell" or "hawk" a product which is free is not
connected with the discussion. For the record, I am "sold" on GWM anyway as it
has transformed my already quite decent skills with women into someone who is
no longer afraid of closing, whether 30 seconds or 30 minutes into the
introduction.
>Fools mate. You spoke to these
>girls about the weather and
>still got laid. How can you
>judge whether it was because
>you were concentrating on the
>sexual state, or what would
>have happened if you had done
>a competent PU?
Proof positive you are just looking for an argument. I said in my earlier
response I prefer deeper conversation with women during GWM - this is MY
adapted style. Please read my statements before you debase what is quite a
well-argued counterposition.
>Exactly the mission.
>Approaching groups allows you
>to choose the woman. You do
>not wait for the girl to play
>a fools mate strategy. He
>calls the girls "lone wolves"
>but what he really means is
>"lame wilderbeast that
>seperate themselves from their
>herd and make for easy
>pickings". You understand that
>is desperate?
I'm not quite sure how a girl who may be temporarily separated from her group
or who may have decided that she wants to go dancing away from her friends can
suddenly make the woman "desperate". Please explain.
>You understand
>that you are hitting on the
>lame wilderbeast rather than
>the tasty, healthy morsels in
>the middle. Sure, lame
>diseased wilderbeast will stop
>you from starving, but I want
>filet mignon.
By that rationale, the higher up the looks scale you go, the more insecure the
female as she can't bear to be by herself for a few minutes. I don't buy that
logic.
>Fools mate. For me the easiest
>are the standing 3 sets in a
>place where the music is not
>overwhealmingly loud. That way
>I can demonstrate my
>confidence, social ability,
>wit and personality to a GROUP
>of people while ignoring the
>target. This is important
>because she does not feel the
>performance is for her. I am
>not hitting on her directly,
>and she can just sit and be
>comfortable and watch like a
>fish looking out through a
>bowl at the outside world (me)
>and think about me in her own
>head, just watching. I am not
>intimidating her by hitting on
>her, and just allowing her to
>regard me in my element first.
That's excellent for you. I go out to pull, that is my primary object. This is
more important to me than demonstrating to myself or others confidence, wit,
social ability, etc.
I tend to think it is easier closing a woman whose initial thought about me was
sexual, and not social. Far easier I have found. But again, that's my personal
experience, before and after finding GWM.
>But that does not mean that I
>do not do all the others. The
>girls in 7 sets (harder to
>hold the entire set together).
>THe girls with a single guy
>(often you find out they are
>together, but if yuo do not
>ask you will never know). See
>for me it is about choosing
>the girl first and then
>dealing with the situation in
>which I find her. I do not
>wait for a fools mate (lame
>wilderbeast) situation and
>then just take what ever is
>available.
I go and talk to women regardless of whether they are with a man or not. It's
got me into trouble a few times, but I never assume a man and a woman are
together, unless the body language they show to each other suggests otherwise.
>Then because I can do 7 sets
>and work my best in 3 sets, I
>would never even dream of
>doing a Gunwitch 'so how about
>this weather we are having' PU
>with a girl alone. I am so
>much better than it. I don't
>get why you guys think his
>shit is novel. It is the
>standard conversation that
>AFCs everywhere are having.
>"Ahh! But the AFCs don't have
>hard on's in their trousers",
>you say, "that is the key".
Proof positive you don't understand. GWM can not be summed up by having a
hard-on when speaking with a woman.
>You think I don't get sexually
>excited during certain times
>in a PU? Shit, I always get
>excited when I am kissing her.
>You have to control your
>sexual arousal so that you do
>not become excited by her
>beauty, and can excecute a
>competent PU with all the
>right messages communicated.
>The FIRST rule of the "Tao of
>Steve" is "Be without Desire".
>The advice is good. You want
>to allow her to be comfortable
>first, then hold off long
>enough that SHE IS CHASING
>YOU.
When the sexual state of GWM is executed correctly, she chases you. Read mine
and many other's FRs and LRs for this.
>C'mon, there is a whole
>section on why not to be
>funny! Is the Gunwitch method
>simply "Get hard on, speak
>about what she does for a
>living"? You are stripping
>everything out of it, and
>leaving it as nothing but a
>single mission statement. How
>can a single statement be a
>method?
GWM says "don't act like a clown to impress women", it does not say "sit there
like a miserable cunt". The central point behind this philosophy is that a
funny man does not get laid just because he's funny. He has to be sexual and
unafraid to show it, otherwise he'll get nowhere.
>It also has the potential to
>get guys becoming creepy
>stalkers. Look, non-sexual
>approach is a KEY. Maintaining
>yourself as a challenge is a
>key. Humour is KEY. When the
>girl goes "I could have this
>sexy, powerful older man, I
>think ... lets see, I am going
>to try something", you have to
>stay just out of her reach.
As I have stated, GWM is a foundation. I always use takeaways, which I first
learned about in DYD. I don't disagree with you on that point.
>Because the minute she
>realises that you want to fuck
>her she can be like "See, I am
>charming, I am attractive to
>these real men. Aren't I like
>Brittany Spears. He wasn't
>anything special. I bet he
>wanted me from the first time
>he looked at me, just like
>little Freddie from my college
>class with pimples on his face
>and semen stains on his jeans
>who keeps looking at my tits.
>Look at the effect I have on
>men." Game over, girl has no
>more need to speak to you, she
>knows you want her. She will
>go off to prove herself pretty
>to someone who is a bit of a
>bigger challenge.
Can you explain why it seems to keep working for me and lots of other guys
then?
>Okay, that is fine. Gunwitch
>has a whole discussion on how
>these things are bad and will
>ensure you do not get laid.
>What the fuck does he know? He
>is stripping the complexity
>and fun out of the game and
>saying "She will pick up the
>vibes of my sexual state". It
>is simplistic and would be a
>huge regression for anybody
>who can already PU with good
>game.
My game was already decent before finding mASF and GWM. The sexual state, the
lack of the fear of the close and persistance, as espoused in GWM, has made my
game so much better and successful.
>Man, Dale Carnegie is lame.
>Good for the 1950's. We are
>over it.
I believe this theory was around before Dale Carnegie.
>Look, she doesn't
>know your name, and you don't
>know hers. At the beginning
>she doesn't care, and once you
>are kissing her, it seems a
>little weird to be exchaning
>names. You know what I mean?
>It is like "We probably
>exchanged names, but I can't
>remember hers." But in fact
>you never exchanged names.
>With Strippers I like to make
>up a fake name for myself.
>Like I don't ask her for her
>real one, because we are in
>Stripper fantasy land. Like
>she says her name is
>Angelique, and I say "OK, I'll
>call you Angelique and you can
>call me Inkelbert." Now lets
>forget about the reality of
>our hum-drum existances and
>explore each others fantasies
>and belief systems. The beauty
>of using bullshit names is not
>lost on her. She loves it.
>Names are not important. It is
>not the sweetest sound in the
>universe as Dale Carnegie
>says. If a girl remembers my
>name, I take it as an IOI, and
>take a step back to get her
>chasing. Using her name is you
>giving HER an IOI. You do not
>want to come across as if you
>are chasing her. YOu need to
>step back and give her room to
>fall (in love with you) and
>get HER CHASING YOU.
I disagree, and from personal experience. Women have told me in the past that
they love the fact I use their name so often.
>Mate, it an attack at the guy
>who is claiming to the world
>that this is the
>be-all-and-end-all of
>seduction skills when he has
>worked out "fools mate". It
>aint new, and it aint
>difficult. Why all the
>bullshit surrounding it?
Listen, toecutter, I respect you and I respect your skills. My first reply to
you started off with that statement. I don't know how many guys are here, but
we all use one of three or four different methods in the main, mix it up with
bits from others, and fit it to our personalities.
For you to have your own archive, in my mind, I give you instant respect for
this. But I am free to disagree with you because GWM is the only method I have
found which gives me consistent results.
I am delighted your stuff works so very well for you, and I'm not trying to
persuade you to use GWM. I'm sure you can understand though that, as someone
who has used this stuff and seen how well it works, I want to correct you on
what I see as a basic misunderstanding of the system on your part, with
respect.
>Why the marketing spiel with
>no specifics or arguements,
>just claims?
I don't always post FRs and LRs, but I do when I have found out something new
or something which may be helpful. I should probably post more, but if you do a
search for mine, you will see they have been mainly based around GWM.
>Men are aroused visually. That
>is why we have porn. Women are
>attracted by charachter, that
>is why they have fantasy
>novels with a couple of
>sentances devoted to the guys
>appearance and hundreds of
>pages devoted to disecting his
>charachter. They love romantic
>comedies starring Billy
>Christal and Paul Reiser. It
>is not a visual thing for
>them.
To say that women are aroused visually is not telling the full story. Some
women get very horny very quickly when seeing a guy they fancy. Our job, as
mASFers, to translate that as quickly as possible into the desired result. Of
course looks matter to a woman, and they can put her into a sexual frame of
mind very quickly. I'm sure we can both agree on this - men and women aren't
that different psychologically, we are just trained to act on it in different
ways.
>>Cut the crap of society for a moment -
>>our judgement on someone else whom we've
>>just met is nearly always based on
>>non-verbal criteria.
>
>Yeah like social proof,
>wardrobe, hairstyle and choice
>of venue.
I don't disagree that social proof, dress style, etc is important. But again,
to the target, it is all non-verbal.
>What the fuck are you talking
>about with your marketing
>essay? SS does not concentrate
>on attraction? Cocky and Funny
>is not about attracting her?
>Stop this unsubstantiated
>marketing peice and actually
>discuss it. Gunwitch is a
>method where you get horny,
>act serious and ask her
>personal banal questions. You
>are better off going in with a
>non-sexual approach, acting
>humorous and fun, negging and
>ignoring the target (or
>busting her balls), and
>talking about stimulating fun
>conversations. Gunwitch method
>is boring and no good. Am I
>realistically the first person
>to say these things? If no-one
>else has, it is because they
>are scared of the group.
>People are definately thinking
>it. It is OBVIOUS.
Drop the fucking insults, toecutter. Either you want a debate, or you want to
stir the shit. I hope it's the former. Using insults is a sure sign that
someone doesn't feel comfortable with their argument, although I'm sure in this
case it's down to your passion for the subject.
SS does concentrate on attraction, as does DYD, but they both severly underplay
the importance on non-verbal communication. Both are fine methods for many of
the guys here, but, for me, they are not as good as GWM as they don't address
the non-verbal aspect.
>Presenting
>your sexuality does not
>require that you are actually
>physically ready for
>intercourse right now.
I won't even dignify that last sentence with a response.
Marque One.
|
