mASF post by "toecutter"
posted on: USENet: alt.seduction.fast newsgroup, January 1, 2001
> I thought it looked so effortless that it could've been all in the
girl. Imagine
> for a second that she got horny after like one minute of talking to
him because
> he had put on some kick ass cologne.
Hehe ... I must add that I don't believe in this for a second. Girls do
not smell cologne and decide they want to fuck the wearer. I just DOES
NOT HAPPEN. There are no magic pills. The pheramone suppliers try to
sell this. It is like if I sell you a magic charm and promise it will
instantly make you rich. Some people might testify that it was the
charm, but I don't believe it for even a second. (That said, I wear
expensive aftershave, the same as I wear clean clothes).
> For me, seduction is the consciously and actively creating attraction
in the
> other person. Not looks you have, not using her alcohol level or her
prior
> horniness or her affinity for a certain cologne... 100% mental or as
close to it
> as possible.
OK, I accept your POV, but disagree strongly. How you look actively
changes the state in the other person (witness performance anxiety
around beautiful women). You need to make yourself look as good as you
can. This means putting thought into how you dress, keeping your hair
clean and cut, being clean, and smelling good. Prince William has
teenage girls all over the world slipping and sliding around in their
seats because of who he is and what he looks like with them having
never met him or even seen an interview with him (Prince Charles never
had it anything like that). So much so that Brittany Spears is taking
trips across the world to meet him and trying to sell us all (him) on
the fact that she is a virgin when she looks to me like she has sucked
more cocks than I have had hot breakfasts. This self presentation thing
is integral to what we do here, and we measure girls values in this
forum exclusively on this measure (she's an 8, 9.5, 10 whatever). It is
definately part of it (as well as being confident that you are sexy and
good looking which flows into the measure. Think Cameron Diaz in 'Being
John Malcovich' vs. 'The Mask' or 'Chrarlies Angels'. Same girl,
different attire and completely different attitude).
> So you see how seduction is different from PU. A fuck is a fuck, but
when it
> comes to learning, a mental seduction beats a club-dance-kino-fuck PU
anytime.
Sure I agree with that, and don't EVER do those dance floor kino PU's
any more as they are too low percentage, and make ME FEEL DESPERATE. My
conversatoinal game is much stronger anyway, and you are right, it is
more rewarding.
> >I get upset when people say that if it is not extremely
> >difficult involving hours of reframing objections, eliciting obscure
> >values and mirroring them, concocting convoluted strategies, then it
is
> >not a real seduction and there must have been external circumstances
> >(like the girl would have been anybody's).
>
> Well most of the time there are some external circumstances. That's
what I
> wanted to know from angelfire58's report, what was important, what
worked and
> what didn't matter. This game we have doesn't mean anything if you
don't have
> consistent results. I even had chicks approach me and say I'm cute
and give me
> their numbers (although rare, it does happen and chicks are mostly 6-
8) but if I
> can't have a chick at will, then I'm just flying blind and I'm no
seducer.
>
> Like in that lay report you posted with that shy/bitchy chick. Was
she shy or
> was it a bitch shield?
Pure shyness. My rapport was high enough that I knew what she was
thinking all the way through anyway from her body language, facial
guestures and tonality.
> What was she thinking as you were talking to her, "Why
> doesn't this guy leave me alone?" or "I hope he doesn't give up!"
She was thinking "Holy shit, I am speaking to this guy, what do I say
next?"
> At which point
> did the decide she wanted to fuck?
After I started kissing her. It was spontaneous and impulsive on her
part.
> If it was right before the lay, then what was
> she thinking the rest of the time.
Different things at different times. "I am nervous", "Is this guy a
player?", "I hope I don't fuck this up.", "I like this guy", "What does
he think of me?", "I am nervous, I would love to just curl up in a ball
and hide from the world". Many things. I can read that easily enough.
> Lots of maybes you see, and this is what I'm talking about. We can't
have many
> maybes in our game and if you're simply satisfied with getting the
lay without
> examining the process, then you learn very little.
There were few maybe's, but a lot of me flying by the seat of my pants.
>
> >Not at all. This is what I was nervous of, that you were discounting
> >the EXCELLENT SEDUCTION here by angelfire.
>
> Yes, I was being skeptical but not to put this guy down. Skeptical is
GOOD! ;-)
>
> >it was not a simple get on / set date / get off scenario, he
> >did A LOT OF WORK. Have a look at the work he did and see how it is
> >different to what you do. The work he did prevented the flake.
>
> Yes but I do a lot of stuff and often seem to do it better (like not
letting her
> off the phone to call me back and get sexual faster and shit like
that) but
> sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. It worked for him,
that's good but
> will it work most of the time on most chicks?
All right, let's call a spade a spade. Angelfire did not do this
seduction well because he had it all worked out before hand, knew what
works, had analysed what works through trial and error and had a
planned strategy. He is a natural. He just got on the phone and did his
thing. We can look at that phone call, and pull it apart and see all
the things he did well, but in his post, he displayed a high level of
quality field work, but a low level of understanding the underlying
dynamics of why it works. (Compare with Bookguy). He has not pulled
apart his game and put it back together again, and this (I am guessing)
is what you find offensive in that he can pull off such a BEAUTIFULLY
EXECUTED SEDUCTION. He hasn't earned it. He's a natural. He's also
fucking good, and we can point at it and learn from what he does well.
> If it will, then let's have the
> entire conversation in detail... ;-)
See this is where the whole canned thing that RJ provides gets into
trouble. I don't believe that there is any one 'script' that is good
for all girls. Angelfire got on that telephone, and knew intuitively
what would work on this chick, and it is different to on another chick,
and the conversation would be different with other chicks.
>
> > Doing a debrief is difficult. I don't do them, do you?
>
> Hehe, I do it DURING the sarge sometimes. Like, "so what do you like
about me?"
> while I'm stroking her hair and watching her every move. Or say shit
like "I
> always get what I want!" and ask her how does that make her feel and
then watch
> carefully.
>
> I simply DON'T WANT to fly blind. Even if it's going good, I'm not
going to get
> lost in the good feelings but I'll always keep crunching numbers and
watching
> for clues. I don't approach as much as before so I need to make
everything
> count, lay or no lay I will learn something new every time.
Flying blind is what makes it fun for me. I like skiing also. I
especially like skiing a new run that I have never skied before, it is
enourmously thrilling as I don't know what is around the next corner.
Maybe flat slowness, maybe steep moguls, so let's just fly around the
corner at full speed and trust my ability to handle what the mountain
throws at me. Same with PU. That is why I do it, and that is why I love
it.
toecutter.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
|
